Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[jeffrey smith]

Phil said:

There are people foolish and misguided enough among Objectivists to think that Roark's utter disinterest in what people think is a virtue

It is a virtue--although more correctly, it's Roark's insistence on thinking and feeling for himself, and not relying on other people's judgments, his refusal to be a second hander. And that's established by the end of the first two chapters or so. By the time he arrives in New York, you already know that about him.

Jeff S.

[Philip Coates]

Phil--> There are people foolish and misguided enough among Objectivists to think that Roark's utter disinterest in what people think is a virtue.

Jeffrey--> It is a virtue--although more correctly, it's Roark's insistence on thinking and feeling for himself, and not relying on other people's judgments, his refusal to be a second hander.

But you can still be interested in what people think without substituting their judgement for your own. You live in a world where people's reactions affect you, may condition your career choices, how you persuade or write to influence them. And even sometimes, if someone has a negative reaction to you (maybe you were being obnoxious?) you can learn from it.

But as a first-hander, your decision is on the facts after having considered -all- of reality.

(For example, attentiveness to other people, including their reactions to you is an important clue as to who or what venue might be a source of value or disvalue, friend or lover or foe or enemy, future ally or client or don't waste time. You need your radar turned on at all times.)

That's why an "utter disinterest" or obliviousness or stoic imperviousness to the degree than Roark is portrayed as having it, while dramatically effective, is not only psychologically false but a shutting out of reality...and ultimately unnecessary for the strong person to be a first-hander. He's strong enough that the false views of the masses or even people close are not going to swerve him off a proper course.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Phil said:

There are people foolish and misguided enough among Objectivists to think that Roark's utter disinterest in what people think is a virtue

It is a virtue--although more correctly, it's Roark's insistence on thinking and feeling for himself, and not relying on other people's judgments, his refusal to be a second hander. And that's established by the end of the first two chapters or so. By the time he arrives in New York, you already know that about him.

Jeff S.

I have serious doubts about that alleged "virtue" of Roark, who took it as far as committing rape (!).

Rearden is described as "he had never liked anyone or expected to be liked".

"Never liked anyone" raises a red flag imo.

The Randian heroes all seem to have the same problems.

The topic is so pertinent in Rand's novels that imo it is no stretch to infer it reflects her own difficulties in that field.

Utter disinterest in what people think can also be an alarm sigal that this person is unable to emphatically relate to others at all.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Phil--> There are people foolish and misguided enough among Objectivists to think that Roark's utter disinterest in what people think is a virtue.

Jeffrey--> It is a virtue--although more correctly, it's Roark's insistence on thinking and feeling for himself, and not relying on other people's judgments, his refusal to be a second hander.

But you can still be interested in what people think without substituting their judgement for your own. You live in a world where people's reactions affect you, may condition your career choices, how you persuade or write to influence them. And even sometimes, if someone has a negative reaction to you (maybe you were being obnoxious?) you can learn from it.

But as a first-hander, your decision is on the facts after having considered -all- of reality.

(For example, attentiveness to other people, including their reactions to you is an important clue as to who or what venue might be a source of value or disvalue, friend or lover or foe or enemy, future ally or client or don't waste time. You need your radar turned on at all times.)

That's why an "utter disinterest" or obliviousness or stoic imperviousness to the degree than Roark is portrayed as having it, while dramatically effective, is not only psychologically false but a shutting out of reality...and ultimately unnecessary for the strong person to be a first-hander. He's strong enough that the false views of the masses or even people close are not going to swerve him off a proper course.

Admittedly I'm handicapped by not having finished the book--but in what I did read, he does pay attention to what people say--he just refuses to accept their judgments. Look at his talk with Keating at Mrs. Keating's boardinghouse, and his meeting with the dean.

(This is a twist. Phil criticizing and me defending one of Rand's characters. )

Jeff S.

[Philip Coates]

> (This is a twist. Phil criticizing and me defending one of Rand's characters. )

Yeah, dude. Next thing you know it will snow in July.

[Brant Gaede]

> (This is a twist. Phil criticizing and me defending one of Rand's characters. )

Yeah, dude. Next thing you know it will snow in July.

That's what it does.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Could you take a little more time writing your replies? It's hard to figure this [your point] out, especially the first [only] sentence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It snowed in July once in Brazil

This happened when I was down there (it was in the southern part, Rio Grande do Sul).

It almost never snows in Brazil.

Ever.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

It snowed in July once in Brazil

This happened when I was down there (it was in the southern part, Rio Grande do Sul).

It almost never snows in Brazil.

Ever.

Michael

As long as there is water vapor in the atmosphere, rain and snow are possible.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

fascinating.

[BaalChatzaf]

> (This is a twist. Phil criticizing and me defending one of Rand's characters. )

Yeah, dude. Next thing you know it will snow in July.

In the year without a summer (1816) it did snow in July in New England.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

I've just started to post on the subject "The Last Part of Atlas Shrugged" on the Why did Dagny and Hank....the Motor thread:

One reader [Dragonfly] posted his view that the book started strong but is of poor quality either starting in "the valley" or in the remaining chapters.

This has prompted me to reread starting 2/3 into the book, so I can see those parts freshly without a page-flipping stretch run toward the end and being alert to details perhaps missed before.

I'm reading it very slowly and I've found some new things - seeing with fresh eyes - and I'm posting some commentary on that thread, but will stop if no one replies.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

It snowed in July once in Brazil

This happened when I was down there (it was in the southern part, Rio Grande do Sul).

It almost never snows in Brazil.

Ever.

Michael

It snowed in Miami once. February 1977. Mostly flurries, melted as soon as it hit the ground. Technically, we are in the "sub-tropics". Michael--by Rio Grande do Sul do you mean the state or the city? If it's the state, then its northernmost latitude is about equivalent to that of Vero Beach which is supposedly the limit of the "sub-tropics" and therefore the whole state is probably subject to hard freezes and frost once or twice a year (ie, about as much as Phil gets in his part of Florida).

Meanwhile, at the moment, we are apparently experiencing one of the hottest (if not the hottest) Octobers in South Florida's history--records set or matched for most of the first half, and the possibility of a repeat at the end of the week.

Jeff S.

[Philip Coates]

What the f***??

What is this the weather channel?????????????????????????????

[Brant Gaede]

Tucson is 70 with low relative humidity.

--Brant

better than Florida, especially when the tidal wave comes across the Atlantic and wipes out the eastern seaboard

[Donovan A.]

you really believe that exists anything like objective morality?

Will such claim stand up to the scrutiny of checking its premises? It won't, Michelle.

Xray, what you are saying is a stolen concept. If you are claiming that morality is non-objective but you know this as a fact, which means you can prove it and demonstrate that morality is subjective, then you are actually saying, morality is objectively non-objective. What you are saying is, any and all actions can be and are life supporting. What you are saying is that any random wish or whim can bring a person to happiness. Reality itself, becomes totally subjective, unknowable and unprovable by your position. Anything goes, or as Nathaniel Branden would say: you are playing life deuces wild.

R

[Xray]

Xray, what you are saying is a stolen concept. If you are claiming that morality is non-objective but you know this as a fact, which means you can prove it and demonstrate that morality is subjective, then you are actually saying, morality is objectively non-objective. What you are saying is, any and all actions can be and are life supporting. What you are saying is that any random wish or whim can bring a person to happiness. Reality itself, becomes totally subjective, unknowable and unprovable by your position. Anything goes, or as Nathaniel Branden would say: you are playing life deuces wild.

R

Xray, what you are saying is a stolen concept.

Stolen concept? Stolen from where? Just curious: how does one go about absconding with one?

If you are claiming that morality is non-objective but you know this as a fact, which means you can prove it and demonstrate that morality is subjective, then you are actually saying, morality is objectively non-objective.

Yes I know it as fact and I can prove it.

For "morality" refers to a mere assortment of subjective values, the proof of its subjectivey lying in the simple fact that the contents of this catalog have dramatically changed during the ages and will keep changing.

The catalogs are also vastly different when you consider different societies, as well as didferent individuals.

"Morality" btw has nothing to do with your assumption that it has to be "life supporting". For example, killing those not adhering to the 'morality' propagated by the reigning ideology was (and is still) practice in several societies.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know if Xray is an objective fact. Maybe all her posts are generated by a computer. A computer could steal concepts all over town and not even know it was stealing. I bet if this site put in a computer block that that would be the last heard from her!

--Brant

[Donovan A.]

2) you make a best effort to avoid equivocal use of terms. Don't take a term Rand used many, many times - giving many examples and extended discussion - and attempt to apply some other definition for that term, and then suggest there's a contradiction because Rand's use of the term doesn't coincide with yours.

The problem is that quite often Rand's "definitions" don't coincide with reality.

Can you give any examples of definitions that do coincide with reality? How can there be any objective definitions if the universe is all a matter of subjective perception? As a matter of fact, how is it possible that we are communicating at all? Selfishness might mean chair to me and coffee table to you. But wait, there is no such thing as anything anyway, because who can prove anything objectively!

None of this has anything to do with Rand's concept of a hero. These issues are metaphysical and epistemological discussions. I'd really rather you post a thread on objective values under epistemology, because this thread is being filled up with irrelevant posts.

Xray, I am somewhat confused by your knowledge of Rand's works, because it seems that you have a complete lack of understanding of Objectivism. Have you studied Nathaniel Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism course? Although, I think many people here may have various disagreements with how some people apply certain principles of Objectivism, I think it is odd for a person to spend so much time studying something that they seem to regard as almost total nonsense. My hunch is that you are a secular humanist agnostic and anarcho-capitalist (I may be wrong), which would explain your pseudo interest in attacking Objectivism. Because Objectivism offers the best formulation for an understandable and knowable universe and this is restrictive.

Side note on other irrelevant posts:

Discussions regarding the weather. MSK, can you add a section in OL for climatology, under specialized sciences? This way we can have Objectivist weather reports and find out the chances of snow in July in various parts of the world.

Discussions regarding truth and or mathematics belongs under epistemology, not ethics, virtue, heroism (Ayn Rand's concept of a hero).

Attacks on Objectivism as a cult or dogma. Reality is not a dogma, the fact that existence exists is not Rand's arbitrary assertion. The fact that a person may direct you to The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism The Unknown Ideal, does not necessarily imply intrinsicism, revelation or dogma. In those books, you will find many clear, rational and logical arguments for various positions. To equate Objectivism with the circular reasoning of Christianity is beyond ignorant.

R

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Randall,

I don't believe there will be a need for a weather section because the interest, including global warming, is sporadic. But the weather is a nice break from the circular exchanges with Xray. (Side note to Jeff: I don't know of any city called Rio Grande do Sul. It is a state.)

You are late to the party with Xray. If you read through older threads, including the one I dumped into the Garbage Pile, you will see every one of your arguments already mentioned in them over and over by one poster after another.

Her intention is to engage you (by manipulating your responses) and trip you up, not to actually discuss the ideas. I recently exposed some of the persuasion techniques she was employing and her posts improved a bit. Subliminal persuasion is like hypnosis. You can't do it if the targeted person is aware of what you are doing and resists it. But the manipulation is still there. I don't get rid of her because I am studying persuasion techniques and she provides an interesting specimen for study.

And I believe it is healthy to meet ideas with ideas (and even meet persuasion techniques disguised as ideas with ideas) instead of heavy-handed bullying. If the only thing Objectivists can do in the face of a cleverly disguised attempt at subliminal persuasion (albeit ineptly performed in this case) is ban and retreat, which is the traditional action of the fundamentalists, that basically communicates the message that Objectivism is dogmatic and cultish and has no real answers.

If the weather bores you, though, we have had a very good discussion on OL about fainting goats: How Fainting Goats Work.

I predict that you will soon find that far more interesting than repeating yourself with Xray and automatically responding to her persuasion techniques without knowing why the discussion goes nowhere.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Xray, what you are saying is a stolen concept. If you are claiming that morality is non-objective but you know this as a fact, which means you can prove it and demonstrate that morality is subjective, then you are actually saying, morality is objectively non-objective.

That morality is non-objective is indeed an objective fact.

What you are saying is, any and all actions can be and are life supporting. What you are saying is that any random wish or whim can bring a person to happiness.

No, she isn't saying that, that is a non sequitur. That different people may use different strategies to survive does not imply that any strategy will do. That is a typical symplistic Objectivist false dichotomy argument, what you also see in the often repeated argument that if our senses are not always reliable, then this would mean that we cannot know anything, which is of course bullshit.

Reality itself, becomes totally subjective, unknowable and unprovable by your position. Anything goes, or as Nathaniel Branden would say: you are playing life deuces wild.

Nonsense, that values and morality are subjective does not imply that everything is subjective, including reality.

[Guyau]

Peter,

It may be that some long-term posters to internet forums are inured of the vitriol of such epithets as “nonsense” or “absurd” or “ridiculous” thrown at one’s interlocutor. It remains that such expressions are disrespectful of the person you are addressing. I bet we can do without that element in these exchanges.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Philip Coates]

> epithets as “nonsense” or “absurd” or “ridiculous” thrown at one’s interlocutor. It remains that such expressions are disrespectful of the person you are addressing. I bet we can do without that element in these exchanges. [stephen]

Very true. And then it escalates. Contemptuous epithets are a "gateway drug" to outright insults which over time become personal attacks, questioning of motives, honesty, character.

[Brant Gaede]

Morality can be objectified by objective reference to what a human being is, but this is extremely difficult and hasn't really been done yet. The basic mistake of Objectivism is to take the Objectivist ethics as a revealed truth and go and run with it instead of doing the general and vast empirical work. The consequent inappropriate absolutism of the philosophy is actually used by libertarian anarchists to advocate abolishing government out of moral reasons as if Galt's Gulch or some such could be a practical working Utopia. They share with Rand the horrid idea of human perfectibility. Because of this all morality might as well be called subjective because orthodox Objectivists including Rand herself have not been behaving responsibly. One needs to take the basic principle of rational self interest and work off that with the tentative humility required in investigating and learning about human nature. It does make historical sense that the absolutism of Objectivism was/is needed to counteract or counterbalance the absolutism of the collectivist left and religious conservatives on the right, but that could have been done even if combined with some modesty.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

It may be that some long-term posters to internet forums are inured of the vitriol of such epithets as “nonsense” or “absurd” or “ridiculous” thrown at one’s interlocutor. It remains that such expressions are disrespectful of the person you are addressing. I bet we can do without that element in these exchanges.

I call a spade a spade and a nonsense argument a nonsense argument. I see no problem in identifying and attacking bad arguments. That is not the same as attacking a person, and in that connection I wonder why you haven't raised your voice against the rampant psychologizing of some forum participants here, the barrage of nasty personal remarks by some members, or the wolf pack mentality on this forum. Then your protest might have been a bit more credible.