Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

Don't worry. I was thinking only of a certain line of personal attacks. In other words, if they kept up, I would peel off the posts and dump them where they belong. But there's a flexibility thing with me, so I let a bit of crap unfold before I get to that point. I think it's fair to warn a person to knock it off for a while.

I didn't do that with a really long thread I put there a while back because the majority of that thread was the problem and I am not eternal. I do have a life and other concerns—ones that do not include sorting through the products of neurosis.

Michael

[Xray]

My computer dictionary has this definition for the concept hero:

hero |ˈhi(ə)rō|

noun ( pl. -roes)

a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities : a war hero.

• the chief male character in a book, play, or movie, who is typically identified with good qualities, and with whom the reader is expected to sympathize.

• (in mythology and folklore) a person of superhuman qualities and often semidivine origin, in particular one of those whose exploits and dealings with the gods were the subject of ancient Greek myths and legends.

This definition is very broad because before you can identify a heroic act or character, you must define what a noble quality is and what the good is. Noble, according to which philosophy? Good, by what standard?

Your have hit it dead center here, Randall, adressing THE point. For a deed which is considered as good is ALWAYS meant as "suited to purpose in view of a subjectively chosen goal".

Therefore a person may be considered as a "hero" by one group because of his deeds while at he same time being considere as the oposite by the opposing group.

Classic example are the suicide killers who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers, celebrated as heroes by those sharing the same ideology, loathed as scum of the earth by the others.

I'm convinced that the prospect of post-mortem glory as 'war heroes' drives many young people to commit those homicides (especially men, although women occasionally have committed political/religious suicide killings too).

Plus there is the promised reward of being eternally celebrated as war heroes in paradise, living a priviliged life there even for paradise standards. It is bascilly just another variant of Valhall-type myths.

"Good by what standard" you have asekd. This excellent question goes right into the heart of the matter.

For there exists no such thing as an "objective" standard, even when a philosophy named Obectivism appears to suggest otherwise.

Asking those probing questions like you did - this is part of checking premises.

I think Barbara Branden in her Efficient Thinking course may have touched upon the idea that when someone is young they will accept comic book characters as heroic, and as adults they may come to the abstraction that John Galt or Howard Roark are heros.

Or one may, after scrutinizing the characters John Galt and Howard Roark, come to quite a different conclusion in terms of their psychological make-up.

In addition, one may may also come to the conclusion that that any kind of hero worshipping is not one's cup of tea at all.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Phil,

There's another element to hero (both Rand's version and the one I hold, which is identical in most respects). I believe that having a story to tell is part of heroism. And a story without conflict (or struggle or adversity or whatever you want to call effort against impediments) is not a very good story.

For example:

Roark wanted to build a building. He advertised his services and got a commission. He drafted the plans. They were approved by the client. A construction company was hired and the building was erected.

The end.

I don't see much of a story in that, nor much heroism.

Roark blew up a building complex under construction he designed to make a point and openly faced jail in order to make that point.

Suddenly I smell heroic in the air—or psychopathic. Whatever it is, it is not ordinary. You don't need to know much else about the story to know that deeply held values, struggle, integrity, decisive action and strong intentional impact on some part of the world are involved here. This may not make sense if it is your only contact with the story. It might remind you of Timothy McVeigh's bombing of innocent civilians over politics. But once you learn that Roark was reclaiming a large-scale product he designed from being butchered by his worst enemies, it starts to sound heroic. And the more you learn about it, the more you realize just how deeply Roark was committed to his values and integrity.

One might be able to say the same about McVeigh (in fact, Gore Vidal did), except for the fact that you cannot talk about fighting for freedom and deprive innocent people of their lives and justify killing bystanders as "collateral damage" with any kind of logical consistency. What about their freedom? As Rand would say, blank-out. That, the delusion as his premise, is what made his act psychopathic instead of heroic.

Michael

What about Ragnar Danneskjöld ruthlessly sinking ships?

Does being convinced of value entitle to such acts of violence?

As for Roark, does breach of contract entitle him to what he did?

Just think of the many breaches of contract happening daily - what would a world look like in which people decided to behave like Roark?

For example, suppose millionaire John Doe finds out that his wife has a lover - adultery is clear breach of contract, so he may, fueled by role model Roark, decide to dynamite the Bahamas villa he had bought her as wedding present.

The wife in turn may feel entitled to retaliate to that initiation of force by committing an act of violence against her husband too. And on it goes.

Before long, personal relationships among people even in modern societies would fall back to a level of vendetta-like revenge killings.

Imo a Randian world would be even more violent than the one we live in.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

What about Ragnar Danneskjöld ruthlessly sinking ships?

As expected Xray conveniently ignores the fact that the cargo seized by Ragnar is loot stolen by government and Ragnar spares the crew. "In the foggy winter nights, on the waterfront, sailors whispered the story that Ragnar Danneskjöld always seized the cargoes of relief vessels, but never touched the copper: he sank the d'Anconia ships with their loads; he let the crews escape in lifeboats, but the copper went to the bottom of the ocean." ( AS, p.465)

[Xray]

What about Ragnar Danneskjöld ruthlessly sinking ships?

As expected Xray conveniently ignores the fact that the cargo seized by Ragnar is loot stolen by government and Ragnar spares the crew. "In the foggy winter nights, on the waterfront, sailors whispered the story that Ragnar Danneskjöld always seized the cargoes of relief vessels, but never touched the copper: he sank the d'Anconia ships with their loads; he let the crews escape in lifeboats, but the copper went to the bottom of the ocean." ( AS, p.465)

Still it remains an act of violence and terror. Like someone setting person P's house on fire because it was built by "looters", but having the "nobility" to let P escape first. Edited October 9, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I named one of my sons Ragnar in homage to this character.

For those who know my history and care, they might be pleased to know that we are no longer estranged.

Michael

[merjet]

Still it remains an act of violence and terror.

Violent self-defense is violent, too. Would you forego it and sacrifice yourself?

Edited October 9, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Donovan A.]

Randall,

The notes I have immediately preceding the response to a question about choosing heroism are these:

—Daydreaming can be valuable and in focus (purposeful, conscious); daydreaming is letting subconscious make connections. Random association is not in focus; like an association test.

—To avoid Rationalism, avoid authoritarianism, which is accepting without knowing reasons and constructing arguments for already accepted conclusion.

Then in my notes is the entry for a heroism question. The two entries following it are these:

—Instinct is a pattern of action (of whole man, not reflex) that is unlearned and innate; it supposes innate ideas.

—Socrates was wrong; men can knowingly commit evil; but if fully know evil and it is kept in mind, can’t act against the good; deliberate evil act possible because of evasion.

Do any of these ring a bell from the recording you have? My notes are bound to be largely paraphrase, and for all I know now, they may contain inferences or connections I made that would have been meaningful to me from studies and interests up to that time. I heard these lectures only once, by recording, 32 years ago.

Hi there, the comment on Socrates was a part of the Q&A from Lecture 7 - Disc 2, answers by Peikoff. I can try to listen to it again when I have time. I'm pretty sure Rand did not deal with the question of Heroism once she took over the Q&A period, she mostly talked about the election.

[Xray]

Still it remains an act of violence and terror.

Violent self-defense is violent, too. Would you forego it and sacrifice yourself?

You are tiptoeing around the crucial question: what is it which is claimed to be self-defense in each case?

Think of the many wars which have been instigated under the pretense of alleged 'self-defense' having no basis in fact.

Therefore the question "would you forego it and sacrifice yourself" hangs in the air unless tied to a concrete example.

As for sacrifice in general - there exists no no such thing as sacrifice as Rand conceived it, since NOBODY expects to get a lower value in return for what they give. Like in any trade, it is always a HIGHER value which one expects to receive.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

As for sacrifice in general - there exists no no such thing as sacrifice as Rand conceived it, since NOBODY expects to get a lower value in return for what they give. Like in any trade, it is always a HIGHER value which one expects to receive.

I see you love to repeat your dogmatic, nonsensical word games as often as possible.

[Xray]

As for sacrifice in general - there exists no no such thing as sacrifice as Rand conceived it, since NOBODY expects to get a lower value in return for what they give. Like in any trade, it is always a HIGHER value which one expects to receive.

I see you love to repeat your dogmatic, nonsensical word games as often as possible.

Merlin, I think you know that I'm not playing any "dogmatic nonsensical word games".

If you belive Im in error, feel free to point out the error and refute the argument.

Since Ayn Rand's ideology is based on concepts like "objective value" "selfishness" versus "altruism", "sacrifice" "life proper to man" etc., these terms will show up time and again in her writings, both fiction and non-fiction.

So I'm merely applying Ayn Rand's advice and checking premises.

But in case you really have not understood my point, I'll explain again.

Rand's error lies in subjectively JUDGING the choices people make by wrongly assuming that her own personal values are "rational", and "objective", which in her mind qualifies them as a one set for all.

But that premise of hers is false.

For what people value or don't value is a matter of personal choice. Suppose a millionnaire gives up his wealth for some reason, all that can be said is that this person - for whatever reason - values abandoning the wealth higher than keeping it. If not, he would not do it. How others value the choice, this again depends on their personal values.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I am familiar with the characters in Ayn Rand's fiction books. I'm looking for a philosophical, explicit definition and concept. I'm looking for the forest, not the trees.

Since Ayn Rand's characters often make 'speeches' voicing her ideology, looking at what they say about heros/heroines is quite enlightening.

In AS, p. 490 and following D'Anconia elaborates:

"The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer, - because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut."(end quote)

Rand disciple N. Branden in 'The Psychology of Pleasure' (TVOS pb. p. 76):

"Thus, if a man is attracted to a woman of intelligence, confidence and strength, he is attracted to a heroine, he reveals one kind of soul; if instead, he is attracted to an irresponsible, helpless scatterbrain, whose weakness enables him to feel masculine, he reveals another kind of soul; if heis atrracted to a frightened slut, whose lack of judgment and standards allows him to feel free of reproach, he reveals another kind of soul." (end quote)

So in Rand's world, on one end of the scale, we have the "heroine", on the other end the "irresponsible, helpless scatterbrain", the "brainless slut" (NB offers the variant "frighened slut").

Seriously, folks: do you think it possible that male Objectivists actually have accepted what was written there and tried to put those "standards" to work, arbitrarily categorizing women like that? Or that female Objectivist have worked hard at becoming "heroines" so they would meet the demanded standard?

I can't help it, but the mere term heroine makes me laugh, for I get the mental image of some Viking-type woman warrior wearing a shield and armor.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Xray

[Guyau]

Thanks, Randall, I see now. There was no indication in my notes, on the Q&A after that lecture, of which answers were from Peikoff (speaking for Rand, sitting right there) and which were from Rand directly. I hope you will tell us exactly what was the question about choosing heroism that had been posed and exactly what was Peikoff’s answer.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Brant Gaede]

I am familiar with the characters in Ayn Rand's fiction books. I'm looking for a philosophical, explicit definition and concept. I'm looking for the forest, not the trees.

Since Ayn Rand's characters often make 'speeches' voicing her ideology, looking at what they say about heros/heroines is quite enlightening.

In AS, p. 490 and following D'Anconia elaborates:

"The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer, - because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut."(end quote)

Rand disciple N. Branden in 'The Psychology of Pleasure' (TVOS pb. p. 76):

"Thus, if a man is attracted to a woman of intelligence, confidence and strength, he is attracted to a heroine, he reveals one kind of soul; if instead, he is attracted to an irresponsible, helpless scatterbrain, whose weakness enables him to feel masculine, he reveals another kind of soul; if heis atrracted to a frightened slut, whose lack of judgment and standards allows him to feel free of reproach, he reveals another kind of soul." (end quote)

So in Rand's world, on one end of the scale, we have the "heroine", on the other end the "irresponsible, helpless scatterbrain", the "brainless slut" (NB offers the variant "frighened slut").

Seriously, folks: do you think it possible that male Objectivists actually have accepted what was written there and tried to put those "standards" to work, arbitrarily categorizing women like that? Or that female Objectivist have worked hard at becoming "heroines" so they would meet the demanded standard?

I can't help it, but the mere term heroine makes me laugh, for I get the mental image of some Viking-type woman warrior wearing a shield and armor.

Putting Rand's ideas about love and sexual attraction to work usually will result in a serious personal disaster.

Simply ignoring them isn't such a good idea either.

--Brant

keep thinking: "Viceroy--the cigarette for a man who thinks for himself!"

Edited October 10, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

So in Rand's world, on one end of the scale, we have the "heroine", on the other end the "irresponsible, helpless scatterbrain", the "brainless slut" (NB offers the variant "frighened slut").

Seriously, folks: do you think it possible that male Objectivists actually have accepted what was written there and tried to put those "standards" to work, arbitrarily categorizing women like that? Or that female Objectivist have worked hard at becoming "heroines" so they would meet the demanded standard?

The Objectivist theory of sex is a little more complex than that. A proper Objectivist can be attracted to a heroine or a slut, or anyone in between, as long as he asserts that she has a superb "sense of life" and is perhaps "on strike," etc. There are all sorts of ways of redefining "highest type of woman" (or man) so that one's harsh judgments apply to anyone but oneself.

J

[Donovan A.]

As for sacrifice in general - there exists no no such thing as sacrifice as Rand conceived it, since NOBODY expects to get a lower value in return for what they give. Like in any trade, it is always a HIGHER value which one expects to receive.

I see you love to repeat your dogmatic, nonsensical word games as often as possible.

Merlin, I think you know that I'm not playing any "dogmatic nonsensical word games".

If you belive Im in error, feel free to point out the error and refute the argument.

Since Ayn Rand's ideology is based on concepts like "objective value" "selfishness" versus "altruism", "sacrifice" "life proper to man" etc., these terms will show up time and again in her writings, both fiction and non-fiction.

So I'm merely applying Ayn Rand's advice and checking premises.

But in case you really have not understood my point, I'll explain again.

Rand's error lies in subjectively JUDGING the choices people make by wrongly assuming that her own personal values are "rational", and "objective", which in her mind qualifies them as a one set for all.

But that premise of hers is false.

For what people value or don't value is a matter of personal choice. Suppose a millionnaire gives up his wealth for some reason, all that can be said is that this person - for whatever reason - values abandoning the wealth higher than keeping it. If not, he would not do it. How others value the choice, this again depends on their personal values.

Hello Xray, although you are raising some interesting discussion, I'm having a hard time seeing how it connects to the concept of heroism in Ayn Rand's philosophy. Perhaps, there is another thread (or you can start one) where we can talk about objective values as opposed to intrinsic values and subjective values.

[Donovan A.]

Thanks, Randall, I see now. There was no indication in my notes, on the Q&A after that lecture, of which answers were from Peikoff (speaking for Rand, sitting right there) and which were from Rand directly. I hope you will tell us exactly what was the question about choosing heroism that had been posed and exactly what was Peikoff’s answer.

Hi Stephen,

No luck yet in finding what I've been looking for. I have not had the time to really search through all these tapes and CDs that I have. If and when I come across the information, I will post it.

I was thinking about the importance of trade in regards to heroism. A hero is not a victim, nor does a hero require victims to be heroic. A hero is a man who acts by reason for his own rational self interest, with happiness as the moral purpose of his life. A rational man's relationships to others is conditional, he trades with others only because others have something of value, something rational and life promoting to offer in return. I think there can be degrees of heroism if we view the heroic in terms of the trader principle. A highly productive person, the genius that offers a new product that is life supporting is heroic. People pay a hero, materially and or spiritually because they recognize the great benefit of the hero's work, ability and mental processes. Therefore, Rearden was heroic by producing Rearden Metal. Saying thank you, is spiritual payment, i.e., the recognition that you have obtained a higher value in a trade, and that this is the reason and purpose of trade. An exchange of equal value is really purposeless. For example, suppose I were to trade a brand new copy of Atlas Shrugged with a friend, for his copy that was identical. There would be no purpose in this trade. Now if I were to trade a copy of Atlas Shrugged for $10.00, then we both walk away as winners, because the $10.00 is a higher value to me than the copy of Atlas Shrugged, and the copy of Atlas Shrugged is a higher value to my friend than his $10.00.

So in my view (this is just me shooting from the hip), a hero is a rational man that pursues living and happiness, he is a moral person who finds enormous joy in achievement and he sees people as an opportunity to expand that joy. Each person acting for their own sake, and the man with the highest level of self-esteem, with the highest capability to produce and provide goods and services in the most efficient way is a great hero.

[Guyau]

Randall,

You might like to read “The Business Heroes of Atlas Shrugged” in the collection Essays on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (Lexington 2009). The author of this essay is Edwin Locke.

Dr. Locke does not define what he means by hero. It is clear that by referring to such characters as Dagny, Hank, Wyatt, and Danagger as heroes, he does not mean only the fact that they are protagonists in the novel. That is one definition of the words hero or heroine. Two others in my American Heritage Dictionary are these:

—One noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose: especially one who has risked or sacrificed his life.

—A person prominent in some event, field, period, or cause by reason of his special achievements or contributions.

In his essay, Locke is examining the traits of these characters in the parts of the novel in which they are engaged in business, not in the later part, in which some of the business heroes risk their lives to rescue Galt. Locke focuses on traits contributing to the greatness of the business heroes in the novel under the following headings:

Focus on Reality

Ability and Confidence

Independence

Vision and Purpose

Passionate Love of Wealth Creation

Commitment to Tenacious Action

Justice

Motive Power and the Profit Motive

You remarked that there can be degrees of heroism and that “a highly productive person, the genius who offers a new product that is life supporting is heroic.” The business heroes in Atlas are engaged in capital goods industries. These products (and transportation services) are needed in order to produce virtually all consumer goods and services, including the goods and services that support life.

For the purposes of Rand’s Atlas, steel, copper, coal, locomotives, track, and electric power are rightly salient productions. Banking, law, medicine, parenting, and music also receive attention. (Gambling and sports do not get attention, and this point comes up in that 1976 lecture series.) All of those areas of human endeavor do support life and require steady active intelligence. To persuade readers that these labors are noble and momentous is one of Rand’s purposes in the novel.

There is another element necessary for capitalism and the modern life it makes possible. That is savings. Entrepreneurship is not enough. There has to be savings withheld from consumption in order to form capital. I wonder if one could construct a novel or short story or poem displaying saving as noble and momentous. Even if saving (particularly for lending) is an endeavor in which heroism is not occasioned, it remains worthy of commendation.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[merjet]

Merlin, I think you know that I'm not playing any "dogmatic nonsensical word games".

You think wrongly.

If you belive Im in error, feel free to point out the error and refute the argument.

Your word games, logical fallacies, superficial analysis, and package-dealing have been exposed and refuted many times, e.g. here, here, here, and here.

Of course, like Wile E. Coyote, who always loses to the Road Runner, you return for the next episode like nothing happened, repeating the same old, dogmatic, nonsensical word games.

Rand's error lies in subjectively JUDGING the choices people make by wrongly assuming that her own personal values are "rational", and "objective", which in her mind qualifies them as a one set for all.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Proof is here. When Xray declares there are no objective values, by logic her own subjective value judgments are not objective either. Regardless, that doesn't stop her from calling her own value judgment "objective", like she does here.

Hello Xray, although you are raising some interesting discussion, I'm having a hard time seeing how it connects to the concept of heroism in Ayn Rand's philosophy. Perhaps, there is another thread (or you can start one) where we can talk about objective values as opposed to intrinsic values and subjective values.

Randall, you risk being in a spider's trap. Xray claims that all values are subjective without exception. She hasn't shown she knows what Rand meant by "objective value" and what she subjectively claims it is is a straw man.

[Xray]

'Merlin Jetton'

Your word games, logical fallacies, superficial analysis, and package-dealing have been exposed and refuted many times, e.g. here, here, here, and here.

Good idea to link to those discussions, where it becomes quite clear who refuted whom.

Merlin:

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Proof is here. When Xray declares there are no objective values, by logic her own subjective value judgments are not objective either. Regardless, that doesn't stop her from calling her own value judgment "objective", like she does here.

Merlin, you keep confusing two fundamentally different issues: assessing and analyzing something versus attributing value to it.

It can be analyzed and proven that Rand's philosophy of objective value is based on false premises.

Hello Xray, although you are raising some interesting discussion, I'm having a hard time seeing how it connects to the concept of heroism in Ayn Rand's philosophy. Perhaps, there is another thread (or you can start one) where we can talk about objective values as opposed to intrinsic values and subjective values.

Randall: my point about heroism was that what is considered as a hero by one group, may be considered as the exact opposite by another group depending on their opposing value systems.

You asked those excellent questions in a prior post where you said "good for what, good by what standard"?

There are several threads where this has been discussed, on the Cardinal Values thread here for example. If you like to analyze the issue in detail, we can continue the discussion there.

Merlin:

Randall, you risk being in a spider's trap. Xray claims that all values are subjective without exception. She hasn't shown she knows what Rand meant by "objective value" and what she subjectively claims it is is a straw man.

Why are you trying to talk Randall out of discussing this with me? Are you afraid he might discover a truth you don't like?

As for "strawman", if you want a real example of a strawman, it is Rand's alleged "altruists", whom she needed to set up as adversaries to have her heroes fight against.

What Rand "meant" by objective value is simple to understand. But this doesn't imply that her claim is based on fact.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"It can be analyzed and proven that Rand's philosophy of objective value is based on false premises."

Anybody seen any standards to analyze stuff with?

[Brant Gaede]

"It can be analyzed and proven that Rand's philosophy of objective value is based on false premises."

Anybody seen any standards to analyze stuff with?

Ask Xray if you can borrow hers as hers are the only ones that seem to work--for her. Maybe they will for you too. Then you could claim real objectivity, at least in her eyes. (Marriage could soon follow--or at least an affair [of the minds (I don't want to completely freak you out)]).

--Brant

Edited October 11, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Donovan A.]

Xray,

Are you saying there is no such thing as the objective good, objective evil and objective heroism by the standard of life? Are criminals and productive men morally equal objectively? In judging the character of men, it is all a matter of arbitrary whim or feelings? If morality, if the good is just a matter of opinion, then why bother having this discussion at all? Nobody would be able to prove what is right or wrong, true or false, rational or irrational.

[Xray]

"It can be analyzed and proven that Rand's philosophy of objective value is based on false premises."

Anybody seen any standards to analyze stuff with?

All you need is to look at facts of reality here. You then will see at a glance the gamut of differing values held, progagated, or proponent of different value systes fightng n eacother.

This alone is proof of the fact that values can't be objective since attributng value to this or that is a matter of personal chice.

Of course it is possible to manipulate people into believing in alleged objective values, which is actualy presenting set of subjctive value disguised as "objective".

Whether it is Catholicism, Marxism or Objectivism (to name but a few)- all these ideologies are based on the same fallacy of alleged "objective" value.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"It can be analyzed and proven that Rand's philosophy of objective value is based on false premises."

Anybody seen any standards to analyze stuff with?

All you need is to look at the facts of reality here. You then will see at a glance the gamut of differing values held, progagated, or advocates of different value systems fighting each other.

This alone is proof of the fact that values can't be objective since attributing value to this or that is a matter of personal choice.

Of course it is possible to manipulate people into believing in alleged objective values, which is actually presenting a set of subjective values disguised as "objective".

Whether it is Catholicism, Marxism or Objectivism (to name but a few) - all these ideologies are based on the same fallacy "objective" value.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Xray