Comments on this quote from "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?"

[Alfonso Jones]

IN the above cited essay (from The Virtue of Selfishness) Rand says:

The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of "saving everyone's soul"—nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one's moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

The implication of the need of ALWAYS making a moral evaluation of every person one deals with is my concern. I believe that I can recall (but can't find the cite) Rand commenting that of course one would have far less need for evaluation for the grocer from whom one purchases food than from a business partner, etc... - thereby qualifying what is meant by "one's own moral evaluation of every person, ..."

Thoughts or inputs?

Alfonso

[Mike11]

(a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly;

...

The implication of the need of ALWAYS making a moral evaluation of every person one deals with is my concern. I believe that I can recall (but can't find the cite) Rand commenting that of course one would have far less need for evaluation for the grocer from whom one purchases food than from a business partner, etc... - thereby qualifying what is meant by "one's own moral evaluation of every person, ..."

Thoughts or inputs?

Alfonso

Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill,

It is far, far, far more important to define values to yourself than it is to pronounce them to others. I wish this point were stressed more in Objectivism.

I have seen so many people pronounce canned Objectivist moral judgments (otherwise known as kneejerks) in aggressive tones of voice that I have grown weary of it. They make a mockery of Objectivism.

There is a law in art: The more you use an effect, the less effect it has. I think that is true in life, also. Of what use is a moral judgment proclaimed to the world at large if no one listens?

There is another law in art that I think applies to life: It is far better to show than say. So here is the second rhetorical question: of what use is a moral judgment proclaimed to the world at large if you do not show it with your acts?

I am not against pronouncing moral judgments. But I hold that these elements should be a part of it. This is the way I practice it.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill,

It is far, far, far more important to define values to yourself than it is to pronounce them to others. I wish this point were stressed more in Objectivism.

I have seen so many people pronounce canned Objectivist moral judgments (otherwise known as kneejerks) in aggressive tones of voice that I have grown weary of it. They make a mockery of Objectivism.

There is a law in art: The more you use an effect, the less effect it has. I think that is true in life, also. Of what use is a moral judgment proclaimed to the world at large if no one listens?

There is another law in art that I think applies to life: It is far better to show than say. So here is the second rhetorical question: of what use is a moral judgment proclaimed to the world at large if you do not show it with your acts?

I am not against pronouncing moral judgments. But I hold that these elements should be a part of it. This is the way I practice it.

Michael

Michael -

I certainly agree with your first statement. I am attempting to integrate what Rand said (which I quoted) with my own thinking. She seems to be saying that:

We must make moral judgments about "every person, issue and event with which one deals." The every is key here. It is not moderated by words to indicate those people have high significance to one. Rand said "every." I don't see any categories, at least not in this rather specific discussion by her, or judgment (the judgments you might make about a grocer, those about a potential spouse, those about a business partner, . . .).

And it is here that I have a big problem with what she said.

Not to be silly - but I don't need to make a moral judgment about lots of people with whom I deal.

Example: I had about 196 MBA students last fall. I assigned grades to each of them. They each (almost) spent about 40 hours in the classroom with me over a 4 month period, and I graded multiple papers by each of them.

But did I make moral judgments about them of any significance? I don't think so. The only evaluations I made were:

1) Their course grade (and the individual deliverable grades, of course)

and

2) In some cases a judgment about whether there was any academic dishonesty going on. (And by implication a judgment that there wasn't for the others.

I just don't see the "moral judgment" there.

Alfonso

[Chris Grieb]

I agree about always and never.

There are people who by dealing with them in a more intensive wahy you may want to look closely at their moral character. I would think a spouse, your business partner, your lawyer, politcitians you support all need a closer look than your grocery clerk, a bus driver or even a policeman who you deal with irregularly.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Alfonso Jones]

I agree about always and never.

There are people who by dealing with them in a more intensive wahy you may want to look closely at their moral character. I would think a spouse, your business partner, your lawyer, politcitians you support all need a closer look than your grocery clerk, a bus driver or even a policeman who you deal with irregularly.

Exactly - and that is my point. Rand doesn't seem to allow for the lesser degree of interaction which makes judgment unnecessary (and a burden) which need not be borne. I don't need to understand someone very deeply to be willing to have him shine my shoes.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Mike11]

Sorry, I dropped a catch phrase and hoped someone would get my point. Which they did surprisingly, let me explain more what I meant...

Without getting into the specifics I think we can all agree there are aspects of Rand's writings which lend themselves to frenzied denunciations as well as uncritical and absolute praise of people, groups or ideas. This passage in my mind is one of them. It encourages us to overly moralize and, maybe even worse and far more widespread, encourage ignorance to pass itself off as knowledge. I almost don't know where to begin as so much of Objectivism's main problems (by which I basically mean all the fun things that swim around in a randroids 'brain' as well as the philosophy itself) can be seen in this passage.

1) It stereotypes what rationality is. I read a definition of "whim" (I think it was in PWNI) which meant something like "any inclination whose cause is not consciously known" and this eventually mutated into some chaotic land beyond reason. Well, 99% of our thinking occurs on the level of "whim" or on a level that does not "know clearly, in full, verbally identified form" our thoughts and opinions. Aside from problems like what that "fully" exactly encompasses it should be clear that in our daily interactions we do not consciously think of what we are doing. On one level I am not consciously thinking about the other people in the library, or even what kind of response I will get from this post. On a more important level we simply can NOT know in the way Rand wants us to, to consciously go through every decision in such a way would mean that a marriage proposal would take 25 years. Just think of how little interaction and thought actually appears between characters in Atlas and The Fountainhead, everything seems to be more about glances and tones that words themselves.

Rand can mean that Practically and contextually we should be conscious and thorough but to take that and make it a theoretical extreme simply can't be done.

2) It tricks people into thinking that their level of certainty in themselves is certainty about issue in particular. If someone takes the attitude of, "I know, in full consciously articulated form what I know about X" the less likely they are to be self critical. Its not a direct causal thing but there is a tendency for this certainty in one's formation of a view and inability to accept the possibility of fault.

I can not count the number of times I've gotten the following from a roid, "What!? In saying that Global Warming is happening you are undercutting my certainty and thus my reason and you are evil and Kant and blah blah blah" I think this passage from Rand contributes to that.

It seems to me in the process of learning we are too busy in challenging and expanding our beliefs to freeze frame our beliefs and spend time verbally codifying them. I can not tell you right now what I think of Israel and Palestine in a verbally codified form but it seems to me that if I did take the time to do so I'd be wasting time I could have spent reading and questioning my beliefs. And we all know how much Roids pontificate and how little they read.

3) It encourages wild denunciations or self deceptive praise. If you need some absolute black and white moral evaluation of everything based on limited evidence what else would you expect?

For example, I can tell, obviously from the grin and slight downward angle of MSK's face, he is mocking me, enjoying the fact that he is corrupting us all.

K, that was all badly written, do you see my point though?

[Ellen Stuttle]

[emphasis added]

Sorry, I dropped a catch phrase and hoped someone would get my point. Which they did surprisingly, let me explain more what I meant...

Without getting into the specifics I think we can all agree there are aspects of Rand's writings which lend themselves to frenzied denunciations as well as uncritical and absolute praise of people, groups or ideas. This passage in my mind is one of them. It encourages us to overly moralize and, maybe even worse and far more widespread, encourage ignorance to pass itself off as knowledge. I almost don't know where to begin as so much of Objectivism's main problems (by which I basically mean all the fun things that swim around in a randroids 'brain' as well as the philosophy itself) can be seen in this passage.

[...]

K, that was all badly written, do you see my point though?

BRAVO, Mike 11. I indeed see your point -- and I don't think the post was "badly written," instead that it was an admirable job of description. I emphasized the "encourages ignorance to pass itself off as knowledge," since I think I might choose arrogant and insistent unacknowledged ignorance as the characteristic of "Randroids" which I find the most irritating of all.

Ellen

___

[UncleJim]

[emphasis added]

Sorry, I dropped a catch phrase and hoped someone would get my point. Which they did surprisingly, let me explain more what I meant...

Without getting into the specifics I think we can all agree there are aspects of Rand's writings which lend themselves to frenzied denunciations as well as uncritical and absolute praise of people, groups or ideas. This passage in my mind is one of them. It encourages us to overly moralize and, maybe even worse and far more widespread, encourage ignorance to pass itself off as knowledge. I almost don't know where to begin as so much of Objectivism's main problems (by which I basically mean all the fun things that swim around in a randroids 'brain' as well as the philosophy itself) can be seen in this passage.

[...]

K, that was all badly written, do you see my point though?

BRAVO, Mike 11. I indeed see your point -- and I don't think the post was "badly written," instead that it was an admirable job of description. I emphasized the "encourages ignorance to pass itself off as knowledge," since I think I might choose arrogant and insistent unacknowledged ignorance as the characteristic of "Randroids" which I find the most irritating of all.

Ellen

___

The people who you describe would be irritating regardless of the philosophy they follow. I find religious persons the most irritating of all.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The people who you describe would be irritating regardless of the philosophy they follow. I find religious persons the most irritating of all.

What I was describing is an attitude which is given textual sanction by formulations of Rand. True, I find "arrogant and insistent unacknowledged ignorance" irritating, whatever philosophy the person holds. But the point here is that there's textual encouragement -- in the supposed guise of legitimate certainty -- for that attitude in Rand's writing.

As to "religious persons," that's an enormous category which includes an enormous range of attitudes and personal styles. And I don't even know what you mean by the description -- crusading religious persons? fundamentalist religious persons? (both of which categories include a certain number of Objectivists). Anyone who has any belief in God? Or...?

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

The people who you describe would be irritating regardless of the philosophy they follow. I find religious persons the most irritating of all.

What I was describing is an attitude which is given textual sanction by formulations of Rand. True, I find "arrogant and insistent unacknowledged ignorance" irritating, whatever philosophy the person holds. But the point here is that there's textual encouragement -- in the supposed guise of legitimate certainty -- for that attitude in Rand's writing.

As to "religious persons," that's an enormous category which includes an enormous range of attitudes and personal styles. And I don't even know what you mean by the description -- crusading religious persons? fundamentalist religious persons? (both of which categories include a certain number of Objectivists). Anyone who has any belief in God? Or...?

Ellen

___

Ellen -

Yes. Rand had a fondness for the dramatic comment (Nathaniel Branden commented that she loved smart-ass comments, using as an example her quote of Barbara Branden's response to "Who will help the poor?"). Some of these comments (including the one I cited to start this thread) are bad advice if taken literally, I think.

Sadly, some orthodox Objectivists can be more obnoxious than some religionists in their dogmatism. At least for most of the religionists their condemnation is often softened by their desire to convert/persuade, while the orthodox Objectivists seem to be satisfied with categorizing the person as an evader, a Kantian, an altruist, etc. and judging them - with no attempt to persuade or illumine - to say nothing of actually understanding what the other person is saying.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Barbara Branden]

Rand: "one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly..."

The problem with this advice is that it is impossible to follow. If we are reasonable people, we cannot have a moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which we deal. There are some people whom it is easy to evaluate morally: if we know someone who beats his wife or consistently lies and cheats, or tortures animals, it is safe to say he is a lousy human being; if we have known someone well for some time and have always observed him to be honest and reasonable, to be courageous, to be benevolently disposed toward others, it is safe to say that this is a good and decent human being. But how many people do we know well enough and in sufficient depth to have the right to pass a moral judgment on their character? I have known a great many people rather casually for years on whom I cannot pass a moral judgment precisely because I know them only casually -- I have seen neither great virtues nor appalling vices in them -- I have seen some qualities I like and some qualities I don't much like, but I don't know how consistent a part of their character either the latter or the former might be.

We need, in most cases, considerable knowledge of a person to have the right to pass a moral judgment on him. And short of that knowledge, we are likely ourselves to be guilty of immorality if we are too quick to pronounce judgment, particularly a negative moral judgment.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

Rand: "one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly..."

The problem with this advice is that it is impossible to follow. If we are reasonable people, we cannot have a moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which we deal. There are some people whom it is easy to evaluate morally: if we know someone who beats his wife or consistently lies and cheats, or tortures animals, it is safe to say he is a lousy human being; if we have known someone well for some time and have always observed him to be honest and reasonable, to be courageous, to be benevolently disposed toward others, it is safe to say that this is a good and decent human being. But how many people do we know well enough and in sufficient depth to have the right to pass a moral judgment on their character? I have known a great many people rather casually for years on whom I cannot pass a moral judgment precisely because I know them only casually -- I have seen neither great virtues nor appalling vices in them -- I have seen some qualities I like and some qualities I don't much like, but I don't know how consistent a part of their character either the latter or the former might be.

We need, in most cases, considerable knowledge of a person to have the right to pass a moral judgment on him. And short of that knowledge, we are likely ourselves to be guilty of immorality if we are too quick to pronounce judgment, particularly a negative moral judgment.

Barbara

Barbara -

I think it's a shame. Ayn Rand was possessed of such eloquence as a writer and speaker, and such amazing charisma. Just consider the ability of those eyes to "swallow one up!" For her to take such shortcuts in speaking - whether for purposes of drama, or having failed to think the matter through, or for some other purpose I surely don't know - is a shame. If she had not taken the shortcuts, we would instead have seen her reasoning through these sorts of things. I think we (and she) would have been better off in such a case.

Bill P

[tjohnson]

Always and never are two words you should always remember never to use.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill,

My own attitude was expressed eloquently by Barbara just now. One of the real differences I have with Rand is her starting point with the greater part of humanity. Her main concern was with heroes and villains. The people in the middle did not matter so much, but when they did matter, she was bipolar in her writing.

On several occasions I remember reading her refer to them as conveyor belts of philosophy or something like that. I tried to look it up, but I could not find it right now. What I did find was very, very illuminating on my own ambivalent feelings toward some of her writing.

To start with, whenever Rand discussed America (or sometimes politics, but mostly politics focused on America), especially in comparison with communist regimes and dictatorships, she was a champion par excellence of the common man, believe it or not. In this context, her opinion of the average individual was very high indeed. Her writing is peppered with comments about the poorest in America is an individual in spirit, not a member of the masses, and so forth. She wrote an essay about the sense of life of the common man in The Ayn Rand Letter called "Don't Let it Go" where she characterized Americans of all stripes being motivated by initiative while Europeans (for example) were motivated by obedience.

Rand also held that the role of the modern intellectual (who should provide moral and intellectual grounds for the producer) was the counterpart to the witch doctor (who provides moral and intellectual grounds for the Attila). In order to do this, she had to assume that average people could read and be swayed by reason. Her writing is full of prompts for people to rise to their highest potentials. She held that any person had the capacity to rise.

She even wrote that average Americans were benevolent and innocent about the true nature of evil. Her praise of average people, when discussing politics, is consistently high.

On the other hand, I just got soaked in the reality of how much contempt she actually held for the average person. I was looking at different terms on the CDROM like "common man," "masses," "majority," "cattle," and so forth and was becoming increasingly frustrated because I could only find quotes praising average people and not the attitudes I remembered reading.

Then I stumbled across the idea of inputting "most people" and all hell broke lose. This phrase is one of the banners under which Rand presented the negative part of her view of humanity. I suspect there are more phrases like this. There are simply too many quotes that illustrate this to give, but here are a few (and I will keep to nonfiction). I am highlighting the phrase "most people" in her quotes.

"The Objectivist Ethics" from The Virtue of Selfishness

If a man desires and pursues contradictions—if he wants to have his cake and eat it, too-he disintegrates his consciousness; he turns his inner life into a civil war of blind forces engaged in dark, incoherent, pointless, meaningless conflicts (which, incidentally, is the inner state of most people today).

"The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests" from The Virtue of Selfishness

Responsibility. This last is the particular form of intellectual responsibility that most people evade. That evasion is the major cause of their frustrations and defeats.

Most people hold their desires without any context whatever, as ends hanging in a foggy vacuum, the fog hiding any concept of means. They rouse themselves mentally only long enough to utter an "I wish," and stop there, and wait, as if the rest were up to some unknown power.

"How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" from The Virtue of Selfishness

If he condemns America and extols Soviet Russia—or if he attacks businessmen and defends juvenile delinquents—or if he denounces a great work of art and praises trash—it is the nature of his own soul that he confesses.

It is their fear of this responsibility that prompts most people to adopt an attitude of indiscriminate moral neutrality.

"Definitions" from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Paradoxically enough, it is the simplest concepts that most people find it hardest to define—the concepts of the perceptual concretes with which they deal daily, such as "table," "house," "man," "walking," "tall," "number," etc. There is a good reason for it: such concepts are, chronologically, the first concepts man forms or grasps, and can be defined verbally only by means of later concepts—as, for instance, one grasps the concept "table" long before one can grasp such concepts as "flat," "level," "surface," "supports." Most people, therefore, regard formal definitions as unnecessary and treat simple concepts as if they were pure sense data, to be identified by means of ostensive definitions, i.e., simply by pointing.

"Appendix—Concepts of Consciousness" from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Prof. D: How do you mean that they are mistaken? Are most people mistaken when they say they are thinking of going home?

AR: Make it a little more complicated than that and I would say most people do not even report their inner states correctly—and I don't mean now anything like lying; it is an issue of personal identification, or lying to yourself. They could tell you, "I hate my mother-in-law," when in fact they are secretly in love with her (I don't mean in the Freudian sense). It is possible, because of the human capacity for evasions, repressions, and above all, rationalizations and other defense-mechanisms. This is a field of which we are merely glimpsing the first stages, and yet look at the enormity of the disasters possible to man in that realm.

"The Establishing Of An Establishment--Part II," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 17 May 22, 1972

Most people do not hold any firm convictions on fundamental issues; today, people are more confused and uncertain than ever—yet the system demands of them a heroic kind of integrity, which they do not possess: they are destroyed by means of fundamental issues which they are unable to recognize in seemingly inconsequential concretes.

"Thought Control," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 26 September 24, 1973

Most people are unable to identify, in clear, conceptual terms, what their own conscience is, i.e., their own moral convictions. Of those who can do so, very few (if any) are able to identify, with any degree of certainty, the conscience of others, of their own families, of their closest friends; in this respect, people often experience painful shocks of disappointment.

I could go on, but there it is. There is plenty where that came from.

Now the obvious question comes up that I have not seen asked until now: How was Rand able to ascertain what "most people" are capable of thinking or feeling? Was she able to crawl into their heads and observe?

Obviously, she was just as limited as we all for verification: You can only observe behavior. You can't read minds.

I am not against using the phrase "most people" in an advertising context. It appeals to a person's vanity and induces him to think, "I am not most people; I am one of the privileged few who understand this message." It is a standard rhetorical technique of persuasion and everything under the sun is sold using it. Preachers in their sermons are particularly fond of this phrase.

I don't think mere rhetoric was Rand's case, though. I think she actually believed what she was writing and felt that she had the capability of determining the mental contents of "most people."

I see this starting point as her grounds of moral judgment when she goes into condemnation mode. She can bash others because "most people" to her are seriously flawed anyway. They mostly lie to themselves and are immoral at root. She is very clear in the quotes above that this is her belief. This, I strongly suspect, is the secret that allowed her to bash anyone at any time with certainty. She already had contempt for them before looking. So when she did look, all she focused on was behavior or traits that cinfirmed what she already knew: that "most people" are hopeless messes. Scientists call this attitude confirmation bias.

I hold as a starting point that "most people's" intentions are to do the best they can. I have a far more benevolent view of the average person and instead of focusing on the poor mental habits we all are subject to at times, I look at how people live and see what they produce. I get a warm feeling—something like looking into a psychological mirror—when I see their struggles to be good and how they go about taking even seriously flawed moral sources (like most scriptures) and adapting them to adhere to their concept of the good.

This is an issue that I want to think about some more before writing about it in greater depth, but here is one of the hints as to why so many nasty jerks and tribal leader wannabes are attracted to Objectivism. They do not hold themselves to be great among the good with evil as the exception. They hold themselves to be the good among the flawed with evil as the norm. The manner in which these two types of people present their moral judgments always reflects this bias. The benevolent producer condemns with sadness in his heart because he knows life did not have to be that way. The insult-monger condemns with sneers and mockery because he knows that that is the only way life could have been.

Talk about a sense of life issue. Here is a big honking divide.

I stand firmly among the producers and I observe that most all of the average people around me are good folks at root. After everything I have lived, I do not expect to change. I am proud of this part of my soul. I didn't get this from a book, either. I had to get there the hard way.

Michael

[syrakusos]

In the field of security, we give (and are given) so-called "honesty profiles." The assumption is that you do not know "most people" but only know yourself.

True or false: Most people are basically honest.

You better say "True" if you want the job.

[syrakusos]

... one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; ... that one must make one's moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

Knowing what you think and feel is knowing who you are.

So, if you like or dislike someone and do not know why, then you have this area of ignorance about yourself. It is probably best to identify the facts. It might not be relevant or consequential in every case, but it is a good policy. Driving down the road, approaching an intersection, you do not need to time the light with a stopwatch to know that you better cover the brake just in case and then not be surprised when green turns to yellow.

I work with a guy who takes other people's advice when it matches his expectations and who is immovable when the external information conflicts with his internal state. Other people I work with, perhaps less internally focused than I happen to be, say "He did it because Bill told him to." They see the external events. I see the internals. I do not bother to try to explain my perceptions to other people, but I identify them at least to myself.

Black and white create gray. There is an infinity of numbers between 1 and 2. A lot of things in my life fall ito the vast middle ground between good and bad. And by good and bad, I mean good for me and bad for me. Being aware of that frame of reference helps me identify events that are "good for Bill" or "bad for Iraq" whether or not they have any relevance to me.

An old theory of education taught that we have "faculties." You can exercise your "logical faculty" by taking geometry or Latin. The theory does not always lead to useful results, but it can provide a conceptual context for understanding why certain "habits of mind" are more fruitful than others. Blanking out is generally a bad way to transaction values inside my head. When I refuse to focus on something because it is difficult to understand, that leads to pitfalls, almost literally. If I do not identify why I trust or distrust someone, I may find myself trapped within a circumstance that I did not expect to fall into.

So, for myself, in my life, I take Rand's advice on this most seriously. In fact, beyond the fatty gray matter, I take her advice on this to heart.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Going with your uneasiness is a very important point when interacting one on one. I agree with you.

The point I was discussing, though, is an overal appraisal of "most people." Being cautious because of unknown factors is one thing. Imagining you live in hell is another.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Black and white create gray. There is an infinity of numbers between 1 and 2. A lot of things in my life fall ito the vast middle ground between good and bad. And by good and bad, I mean good for me and bad for me. Being aware of that frame of reference helps me identify events that are "good for Bill" or "bad for Iraq" whether or not they have any relevance to me.

There are no numbers between 1 and 2 or 1 and 10, etc., unless they are stated. Numbers are only in the mind or vibrations in the air if spoken or as written down. There are only an infinite number of possible expressible numbers.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Rand's] main concern was with heroes and villains. The people in the middle did not matter so much, but when they did matter, she was bipolar in her writing.

That's a good description -- and I think you've correctly identified where the divide between the bipolarities falls:

When she was writing in a political context, contrasting the American "sense of life" (using that term in this context as she used it, leaving aside my quarrels with the idea), especially with European, and doubly especially with Russian attitudes, she could be glowingly positive. But when she was describing the cognitive processes and emotional state of "most people," she conjured a bleak picture.

I remember a day -- it has to have been in about 1964 from details associated with the memory -- a drizzly gray day when I was sitting in the family car at a local (Peoria area) shopping mall waiting for a couple of my brothers and sisters whom I'd chauffeured on a shopping expedition and who had gone into a store to make a purchase. I was having a "bad day" in any case, feeling in a depressed mood, and the weather was seeming to extend the mood. I started thinking as I watched people going to and fro from the parking lot to the stores, "Suppose Ayn Rand is right about the mental state of 'most people'...?" Awful thought, it seemed to me.

Her depictions of the psychological workings of "most people" are indeed abundant in her writings, and indeed paint a dismal portrait.

On several occasions I remember reading her refer to them [people in the middle between heroes and villains] as conveyor belts of philosophy or something like that.

There you're misremembering. It was the professional intellectual classes -- journalists, playwrights, novelists, etc. -- whom she described thus. The essay "For the New Intellectual" I think provides an example.

Ellen

___

[Barbara Branden]

Michael E. Marotto:

"Knowing what you think and feel is knowing who you are.

"So, if you like or dislike someone and do not know why, then you have this area of ignorance about yourself. It is probably best to identify the facts. It might not be relevant or consequential in every case, but it is a good policy....

"An old theory of education taught that we have 'faculties.' You can exercise your 'logical faculty' by taking geometry or Latin. The theory does not always lead to useful results, but it can provide a conceptual context for understanding why certain 'habits of mind' are more fruitful than others. Blanking out is generally a bad way to transaction values inside my head. When I refuse to focus on something because it is difficult to understand, that leads to pitfalls, almost literally. If I do not identify why I trust or distrust someone, I may find myself trapped within a circumstance that I did not expect to fall into.

"So, for myself, in my life, I take Rand's advice on this most seriously. In fact, beyond the fatty gray matter, I take her advice on this to heart."

Michael, I agree that if you like or dislike someone, it is best to identify the facts. But there are at least two problems involved here. First, it may not be possible to immediately understand exactly what those facts are, and we may not deal with the person in sufficient depth to learn the facts. And second, we might like or dislike a person for reasons having little or nothing to do with his character or with moral judgment. As an example, I knew a man some years ago whom I immensely enjoyed talking with; it seemed that his way of coming at ideas, his psycho-epistemology, was very similar to mine, and we established a very pleasant conversational rapport. I liked him. But when I came to know him better, I learned things about his character and his typical actions that caused me to realize that that rapport was not a sufficient reason for my positive evaluation of him. He was not admirable; he was far from it.. Or again, we might find ourselves responding positively to someone we meet, and later realize that it was because in physical appearance he reminded us of someone we once loved -- which surely is not a reason for a moral judgement of the person.

Yes, in order to know ourselves, it is best to identify why we trust or distrust someone -- if we can. But it is equally best to identify the fact that to understand the nature of that person's moral character requires, in most instances, considerable knowledge of the person. My own rule of thumb is this: if I like or dislike someone whom I don't know reasonably well, I will bear in mind my emotional reaction. It may be that my subconscious is wiser than my conscious thinking, (as it often is) and I am emotionally grasping something important about him, which the facts will eventually bear out. So I don't discard my emotional reaction, but if possible I will continue observing him until the facts either bear out or contradict that reaction. Only then will I be prepared to pass judgment. And if it's not possible or in my interest to continue observing him, then I must be content to be left with only the knowledge of my own emotional reaction to him, but not with the knowledge by which to morally judge his character.

Barbara

[Wolf DeVoon]

Not to quibble, just an observation of sorts. I don't really understand this preoccupation with judging moral character. I tend to accept others as they are, "warts and all" as the saying goes, although I draw the line at blockheadedness, open hostility, cruelty, vanity, dissembling and smarmy smiles. The point here is that heroism is rarely visible to others or appreciable on a standardized scale of measurement. I am reluctant to snub any man who failed, thinking now of Henry Cameron.

From previous writing:

Privately and professionally, my liberty knocked about a hundred people for a loop, all innocent bystanders who gravitated too near. Nowadays I wonder what hath Wolf wrought? A lot of people have read my strange writings, and I'm sure at least some readers were misguided thereby. I know that I certainly was, on occasion. I misjudged the fate of the Euro currency, for example, and the resilience of the Federal Reserve.

For the reason given above, I claim to know something about error and deliberate wrongdoing. Frankly, I'm in favor of it, including but not limited to homosexuality, misappropriation of funds, lies, conscription of the willing, reckless fatherhood, high-speed games of chance, contraband, and gross negligence in tax matters. Liberty entails the right to do wrong and get away with most of it. Half of all murders go unsolved, unless you're living in Central America or Africa, where criminal investigation is especially weak.

I believe that Ayn Rand gave us two versions of Ayn Rand, and I forgive her the mismash of minarchy that she was seduced into misappropriating. The young Rand was a vamp -- my kind of babe. The Fountainhead had it all. Rape, dynamite, ruthless manipulation of weaker characters like Peter Keating, smashing up priceless museum pieces and fireplaces by the dozen (if you include Night of January 16th and We The Living, written in the same period). How anti-NAP can you get? I sometimes wonder why Randroids don't seem to grasp the obvious, that Rand the seeker was an immoral anarchist to the very roots of her hair, top and bottom. Galt killed tens of thousands by starvation, right?

The Right to Do Wrong

[Brant Gaede]

Galt killed nobody.

--Brant

[Mike11]

I agree, homosexuality is wrong, bisexuality is the way to go.

Double the action.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Mike11

[Alfonso Jones]

Not to quibble, just an observation of sorts. I don't really understand this preoccupation with judging moral character. I tend to accept others as they are, "warts and all" as the saying goes, although I draw the line at blockheadedness, open hostility, cruelty, vanity, dissembling and smarmy smiles. The point here is that heroism is rarely visible to others or appreciable on a standardized scale of measurement. I am reluctant to snub any man who failed, thinking now of Henry Cameron.

From previous writing:

Privately and professionally, my liberty knocked about a hundred people for a loop, all innocent bystanders who gravitated too near. Nowadays I wonder what hath Wolf wrought? A lot of people have read my strange writings, and I'm sure at least some readers were misguided thereby. I know that I certainly was, on occasion. I misjudged the fate of the Euro currency, for example, and the resilience of the Federal Reserve.

For the reason given above, I claim to know something about error and deliberate wrongdoing. Frankly, I'm in favor of it, including but not limited to homosexuality, misappropriation of funds, lies, conscription of the willing, reckless fatherhood, high-speed games of chance, contraband, and gross negligence in tax matters. Liberty entails the right to do wrong and get away with most of it. Half of all murders go unsolved, unless you're living in Central America or Africa, where criminal investigation is especially weak.

I believe that Ayn Rand gave us two versions of Ayn Rand, and I forgive her the mismash of minarchy that she was seduced into misappropriating. The young Rand was a vamp -- my kind of babe. The Fountainhead had it all. Rape, dynamite, ruthless manipulation of weaker characters like Peter Keating, smashing up priceless museum pieces and fireplaces by the dozen (if you include Night of January 16th and We The Living, written in the same period). How anti-NAP can you get? I sometimes wonder why Randroids don't seem to grasp the obvious, that Rand the seeker was an immoral anarchist to the very roots of her hair, top and bottom. Galt killed tens of thousands by starvation, right?

The Right to Do Wrong

Wolf -

Are you serious?

Bill P (Alfonso)