John Day

Murray's thoughts have validitya nd I consider Aquinas a giant of Western thought, but Christianity's record during its first 1000 years on freedom and human progress is not a good one. In fact, I would say that the Islamic world was more progressive for centuries, so Christianity's respect for individualism was by no means a given. The Catholic Encycopedia lays out clearly why Christianity (or least Catholicism, the original form of Christianity) is not a fully individualistic religion.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07761a.htm

I wasn't terribly pleased with this interview with the director. An excerpt:

GM:  To return to the themes of the novel.  Do you think the characters are beyond good and evil, beyond morality in a Nietzschean sense?

PJ:  I really believe that.  I really believe that.

GM:  That they’re these Promethean, Titanic figures who are above such things?

PJ:  I really believe that.  Rand uses a lot of things like good and evil in her text but I don’t think she really believed those ideas.  It’s like what Oscar Wilde said … I don’t know the exact quote – he said that a book can either be poorly written or well written, but it can’t be evil.

GM:  But the novel has that Nietzschean overtone to it.

PJ:  Absolutely.

http://www.libertasfilmmagazine.com/exclusive-lfm-visits-the-set-of-atlas-shrugged-director-paul-johanssons-first-interview-about-the-film-part-i/

There is a radical difference between having an “open mind” in the sense that Ayn Rand described and taking the viewpoint that Objectivism is an “open system.” In his monograph—Truth and Toleration (later revised as “The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand”), David Kelley carefully outlined certain key points of the Objectivist philosophy which are fundamental—e.g., reality as an objective absolute, reason as man’s only tool of knowledge, the ethical principle of rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, among others. Rand’s view of objectivity (vs subjectivism and intrinsicism) would also be included. You might want to read Kelley’s essay for a full analysis of those fundamental tenets, which I think was thoroughly valid and accurate. Those who advocate the view that Objectivism is an “open system” do not regard such fundamental principles (not limited to the above) as in doubt.

The view that Objectivism is “open” simply means that we must be free to think independently about the more detailed aspects of Objectivism (e.g., Objectivist epistemology) and to further extend the Objectivist system as needed until it can reasonably be considered as complete. It means that we do not believe in treating the works of Ayn Rand as dogma.

No one could reasonably call himself an Objectivist and, for instance, claim to have an open mind about the existence of objective reality. We are entitled to have an open mind only in those areas of human knowledge where the existing evidence is inconclusive.

The advocates of “open” Objectivism simply believe that there is more philosophical work to be done Someone who claimed to have an open mind about everything has no genuine convictions. Such generalized agnosticism has nothing whatever to do with treating Objectivism as an open system.

Dennis,

I took the time to read a Google cache of "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand" over the weekend and I will say it was very useful in answering my questions after reading "A Question of Sanction" and "Fact and Value." One issue I have is that I don't think Kelley clearly expressed enough why certain principles held in Objectivism are primary and why some are not. For instance, although Kelley states that the political implication of the Objectivist view of right is that government must be very limited, in the 2000 postscript, Kelley lists several "sticking points in Objectivism" that will be debated among Objectivists, one which being the question "Is anarchism or limited government the best system for protecting individual rights?" This suggests that Kelley does not consider the principles laid out in "The Nature of Government" to be primary to Objectivism. Is there anything written by an open Objectivist that goes into fuller detail about why certain principles are primary are why others are not?

I'm hesitant to call myself an "open Objectivist" even though I have some disagreements with ARI. Open Objectivism begs the question, "Open to what?" Are there any philosophic tenets that are necessary to calling oneself an Objectivist? I feel that to be an Objectivist, one must hold certain essential positions, most obviously, a view of metaphysics that rests on the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-contradiction. A is A, and will always be A. In this sense, the concrete principles of Objectivism are not "open." I think this quote by Ayn Rand is relevant:

[There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an “open mind.” This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having “a wide open mind.” That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.

What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear.

Source: “Philosophical Detection,”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 21

This may seem paradoxical, but I'm closer to ARI in terms of abstract philosophy yet closer to TAS in terms of practical application. I don't quite take the view of Andrew Joseph Galambos on intellectual property rights, but I do believe that a fully integrated philosophy belongs to the person who created it.

I'm annoyed that a lot of the links to old articles are now dead. At least there's Google Cache.

I had read Lilla's piece when it came out and had some pretty strong disagreements with it. While the American people are perhaps more libertarian in their personal dealing (maybe more libertine is more apt), more Americans than ever want to rely on the collective effort of others.

As for Riggenbach, while I think that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are fairly sincere in their views (even though I have my varying disagreements with them), I do think that a lot of the Republican leaders are cynically trying to co-opt the energy of the Tea Party movement when they supported a big-government agenda and large decifits under George W. Bush. While I hope that the Republicans retake the House in November, I have strong doubts that the current leadership is committed to reversing the tide of collectivism.

Let's use the analogy that Beck uses: the Titanic. If you see that the ship you are on is going to sink, at that moment, if someone is offering people lifeboats, you don't worry too much about his views on metaphysics. You get on the lifeboat. The only alternative is to sink. And that's reality, not anyone's opinion about what should be.

In another context, I doubt I would set up a Beck or Fox section. But our country really is going to hell in a handbasket and there is still time to stop it. I have lived under what the progressives are trying to do here. Wait until you cannot work at what you want to--or go where you want to go, etc.--because of some bureaucrat telling you it is not in the government's interest.

My assessment of Beck is somewhere between Michael's and yours and probably closer to yours. I believe Beck is a useful political ally, especially in these times. There are aspects of his show that I enjoy and other times I find him completely overbearing.

Your point about Ronald Reagan is an important. The difference is that Reagan was a politician and Beck is a broadcaster. To be successful in Reagan's world, you have to appeal to a majority. To be successful in Beck's world, you only have to appeal to a few million people. You can say that Beck has to say certain things to appeal to his audience, but that leads to the question of who's the real leader and who's the real follower. Someone earlier compared him to Ellsworth Toohey, but I think he's more like Gail Wynan, a talented individual who thinks he gains power by giving the audience what it wants.

Never forget that Glenn Beck is first and foremost an entertainer. He is not an activist, he is, in his word, a rodeo clown. If you take him in this spirit, you'll be amused and perhaps even pleasantly surprised. If you take him as America's last best hope, you will almost certainly be disappointed.

The Objectivist disagreements with Beck I have seen are from an end-point perspective.

I would say that the disagrees are very fundamental. The starting point of Objectivism is metaphysics, the nature of the universe. Objectivism hold that the physical world is all that exists, that all of physical world is subject to the law of causality and that the concept of infinity does not exist in nature. Therefore, Glenn Beck and Objectivists disagree on the most fundamental question of life: What is the nature of the universe? On epistemology, Objectivism holds that reason is an absolute and man's tool for survival. "Man's reason is his moral faculty." Glenn Beck believes that reason is not enough and we must have religious faith to survive as a society. On ethics, Objectivism "holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." While Beck would politically have no problem with allowing individuals to live for their own sake, I don't believe he holds it as moral ideal and his personal ethics would lie more in the camp of the altruists. Beck tithes 10% of his income as is required in the Church of LDS. For a man of Beck's means, giving away 10% of your income is perfectly fine, but idea of charity as a moral requirement is very much counter to Objectivism.

I saw this yesterday and I had to share it. Linus delivers a message worthy of Ellsworth Toohey or James Taggart and Charlie Brown looks befuddled.

http://comics.com/peanuts/2010-06-04/

Of the ones listed that I've seen:

Fight Club: Perhaps the most nihilistic film released by a major studio. The film is a perfect representation of the anti-industrial revolution that Ayn Rand wrote of. Even the left-wing Roger Ebert was critical of it.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest: I actually very much enjoy this film despite it's downer of an ending. Like We The Living, it shows what happens to people when the achievement of their values is made impossible.

Pulp Fiction: A very overrated movie, I found it very difficult to understand.

The Big Lebowski: One of my all-time favorites. Don't bother trying to understand it, just enjoy the ride.

American Psycho: Overall, I found it very funny and entertaining, but too violent at times.

No Country for Old Men: A great movie with a very malevolent message about the problem of evil.

Terminator 2: Enjoyable action movie, the line "No fate but what we make" is something most Objectivists would hardily endorse.

Wall Street: Good but not great movie. Douglas is fantastic as Gekko, but Darryl Hannah is miscast. Gekko's speech is one of the great scenes of all-time.

Other "anti-Objectivist" films I enjoy:

Groundhog Day: Promotes determinism and altruism, but it's a very funny and sweet movie.

Clerks: Completely filthy and somewhat glorifies neer-do-wells and potheads, but funny as hell.

Malcolm X: I strongly disagree with his philosophy on race, but Malcolm X was a fascinating figure and he was portrayed brilliantly by Denzel Washington.

Lawrence of Arabia: Disagree with the film's overall message, but it's visually stunning and exceptionally well-acted. Lawrence embraces the primative culture of the Arabs, but I love this exchange:

Prince Feisal: Gasim's time has come, Lawrence. It is written.

T.E. Lawrence: Nothing is written.

Sherif Ali: You will not be at Aqaba, English! Go back, blasphemer... but you will not be at Aqaba!

T.E. Lawrence: I shall be at Aqaba. That, IS written.

[pointing to forehead]

T.E. Lawrence: In here.

This doesn't seem good. I think to truly do a story like Atlas Shrugged justice, you'd need a budget of at least $75 million, perhaps closer to $100 million. Doing this on the cheap likely will not end well.

In The Line of Fire: John Malkovich is fantastic as an ex-CIA assassin who has taken a nihilistic turn and wants to assassinate the President. Clint Eastwood is a Secret Service agent trying to get redemption for failing to stop Kennedy assassination. The psychology and tension between the two makes this my favorite movie and extremely rewatchable.

Silence of the Lambs: Again, a great psychological thriller. Anthony Hopkins is the charming but horrifying Dr. Hannibal Lector. Jodie Foster's performance and the development of her character in this film is what caused her to be the image the Dagny Taggart in my mind.

Back To The Future: A very sharp script and a great ensemble cast. Crispin Glover and Lea Thompson in particular playing both the middle-aged and teenaged versions of Marty's parents.

Scarface: Very much a guilty pleasure. Totally over-the-top 1980s.

Goodfellas: The soundtrack is brilliant and I love the passing of the years the film goes through. Another great ensemble cast.

The Big Lebowski: A fantastically silly film that points at philosophic themes.

Caddyshack: My favorite comedy, holds up even after many viewings.

And two of my Christmas favorites: Bad Santa and A Christmas Story.

My guess is that the tremendous amount of discrimination have forced African-American to have much more a group mentality than white Americans. Blacks had to band together just to survive and a black man striking it out alone like Howard Roark just wouldn't be realistic. African-Americans are also more religious than white people and Objectivism's views on faith would likely offend many African-Americans who could be seen as conservative or even libertarian. Most Objectivists also opposed the Civil Rights Act, which while it was a government initiation of force on private businesses, went a long way to improve the standing of African-Americans in this country. The Objectivist position, while correct in principle, wasn't Objectivism's best P.R. moment in terms of social progress.

The benevolent side of me wants to say: "Hey, better late than never," but it's still pretty funny. How could Peikoff could not have seen this coming considering that universal health care had been the goal of the Democratic Party for 40 years? Nothing Obama has done as President is any worse than what is found in a European social democracy (which isn't to say it's not terrible, but it is expected). I would rather have America's Republican Party, where you have religious politicians but some of them truly believe in small government, than have Britain's Conservative Party, where the politicians are more secular, but are basically playing on the left's terms when it comes to the welfare state. (Cameron's idea of the "Big Society" is very much rooted in altruism)

I'm curious as to how Peikoff, Brook, et al. are going to react to Rand Paul's win tomorrow considering their ultra-hawkish views and strongly coming out against Ron Paul during his presidential run.

On the point of Dominique, she is clearly a mentally troubled woman for most of the novel and it wouldn't be out of character for her to make exaggerated claims, especially if her goal for much of the novel is destroy Roark by any means necessary.

Does anyone else have the suspicion that one can rise above one's own gender-nature?

To what extent? A man could never get pregnant and a woman could never play in the NFL. Social constructs have prevented women from achieving for most of history, but those social constructs where based on outdated prehistoric gender differences that were once critical for survival. I contend that the Industrial Revolution made feminism possible because it reduced the need for gender roles.

Also, I feel like Dagny Taggart is one of the most compelling feminist characters in fiction. It's made clear that her being a woman prevents her from being taken seriously by the other executives at Taggart Transcontinental, but rather than whining, she just goes out and proves her worth. Additionally, while I disagree with the conclusions of "About a Woman President," Rand does make it known that she considers a "'clinging vine' type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men."

Much of Rand's pre-1940 writings had a Nietzschean Übermensch quality to them. It can be said that Rand didn't have a fully developed philosophic system yet, but one doesn't need a system to know that murdering young girls is wrong. The best defense could be that Rand came out of Russia severely emotionally disturbed and it took some time for her to adjust to American principles.

Rand's early views can be seen in "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods" passage in the original version of We The Living. The 1959 version that is read today is more egalitarian. I wish that Rand could have had the honesty to admit to the shifts in her philosophy while standing by 95% of the novel, but that would have required her to say that she was wrong about something.

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others."

My fellow Objectivists (or heretics 8-) I am asking, not in a Peikoffian way, but: Who would you shun and why?

The kind of people who if their ideas and proposals were ever enacted into law, would result in great evil. This would include Neo-Nazis, Jihadists, and certain Christian extremists such as the Phelps family. My reasons for this: On a personal level, I would find these people unappealing, I would not enjoy my time around them and I would not wish to waste my time with them. On a larger level, I believe that evil ideologies can only take hold when individuals choose to sanction them. If people who hold evil ideologies are shunned from polite society, the probability of their ideas spreading goes down.

All actions that individuals take are actions that uphold the individuals' values. Objectively these values include life and liberty.

Justice pertains to the subset of actions taken towards individuals who threaten the life or liberty of others. Justice is therefore expression of values within a specific context, in this case with the purpose of protecting values. Since justice remains within the category of human action, those individuals who carry out justice necessarily are taking actions that should uphold their own value systems (via standard of life). Criminals are dealt justice not as floating philosophical justification (asserted in The Objectivist) nor as punishment for criminal behavior; they are dealt with for our protection.

You appear to be presenting a utilitarian view of justice, that justice is whatever presents the greatest good for society. (Forgive me if this is not an accurate view of your position) That would run counter to the Aristotelian view that justice is giving people what is due to them. As Rand puts it:

"Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification—that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero..."

Under that standard, the death penalty can be seen as moral under the Objectivist view of justice. I don't buy into the deterrent argument for the death penalty, at least in this country because the vast majority of murderers are never executed. I would say though that there are a few heinous criminals who deserve to be wiped out, and perhaps in a utilitarian argument, we as a society are better off for them no longer existing in any respect.

Referencing the death penalty: If one were to condone the death penalty, one condones value-behavior in antithesis to the standard of life. No amount of conceptual clouding can alter this fact. Those individuals that mete out capital punishment to disempowered criminals are in fact murderers; those individuals are, within the reality of the moment regardless of conceptual evasion, objectively the cause of human death since their actions serve no purpose towards the future protection of human life.

In Galt's speech, he makes the point that it is moral to use force to "destroy destruction." I would say that it is not only moral to destroy one's ability to destroy, but in some cases, it is moral to destroy the destroyer himself.

Objectivism holds that man's life is the standard of value.

Given this proposition, it seems completely unethical that we individuals condone the death penalty.

Values pertain to action. Once a man is in custody of the U.S. government, he/she is effectively removed from the ability to take life. In other words, no concrete threat to the standard of value.

If an individual/group/government chooses to pursue capital punishment, these are the individuals who objectivelyundermine the standard of life, who are objectively taking life. Clouds of conceptual justification cannot change this fact.

It seems there can be no justification for capital punishment when a criminal is in custody. Any justification necessarily applies to values and justifications that are hierarchically below life in the present context.

Murders in prison go on all the time. Most people don't care too much about it because its criminals killing criminals, but if one holds that even a criminal's life is a standard of value, then it is something to consider. That problem could be solved by having all murderers in solitary confinement, but prisoners' right advocates consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment.

A large degree of it has to do with the times we're living in. The election of Barack Obama in addition to the TARP bail-out under George W. Bush has brought about more unity between conservatives and libertarians than has been seen in the last thirty years. Both camps see Barack Obama as a threat to the values they hold dear and the state of the economy has largely pushed social issues and foreign policy under the rug. If a Republican is elected President in 2012, the sniping between conservatives and libertarians will start up again. Until then, they're united under a common enemy.

To his credit, Glenn Beck is not a Republican hack and was very critical of George W. Bush going back to his Headline News program. If a Republican President who pushes a big-government agenda like Bush is elected, I would hope Beck would stay consistent.

The show, RedEye has made a fantastic series of these. Most of them are completely avant-garde and involve inside-jokes involve the show's cast. But here's a spoof of Media Matters that can be understood by someone who doesn't watch the show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwhPi5FoIEo

If Judaism is compatible with Capitalism, why can't Christianity be compatible with Capitalism?

Because Christian teachings very specifically reject materialism. A very famous example from the Gospels:

Mark 10:17-24 (New International Version)

The Rich Young Man

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." - Matthew 6:24

Now, there are writers who called themselves Christian who wrote favorably of capitalism, Max Weber being a famous example. Weber's views came out the Protestant Reformation, which did a great deal to create an individualistic, materialist version of Christianity that did tremendous good for the Western world. In its origins, however, Christianity is a collectivist, anti-capitalist philosophy.

Were that actually the case, John! But, unfortunately, there are still many who certainly act as if they considered Rand to have been right on virtually all major issues, and certainly right about her personal relationships. A whole book has been written trying to prove that- "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics," which has been the subject of much analysis and criticism on this website.

It's also been noted on this website that the sales of "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critic" have been very poor compared to other books on Ayn Rand. I would venture that the vast majority of casual Ayn Rand fans have never even heard of it. Yes, it is available on ARI's website, but it can't be said that they've heavily promoted it.

For further examples, see the many discussions here on the "airbrushing" of documents from or about Rand by key figures in the brief history of Objectivism. Robert Campbell has also been running a series of posts showing significant alterations that some "editors" at ARI have done to her letters, journals, and the published collection of her Q & A remarks. Jennifer Burns, in her recent book, also has given examples of this altering of Rand's documents for publication.

Many of those examples are disturbing, but in an ironic way it actually shows that they don't believe Rand was perfect because some of her opinions clashed with their rational minds. Obviously, that's no excuse for making significant changes to Rand's works in a dishonest fashion.

The continued attempts to villify the Brandens and to deny the importance of their key roles in the development of Objectivism, continues by some writers connected with ARI.

Would you care to provide recent examples? One can go into any bookstore, pick up a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness and read several essays by Nathaniel Branden. That alone, I would say, makes Branden the second most read Objectivist writer to this day. (I'm basing that on the sales of TVOS to Peikoff's OPAR) The end of Rand's introduction included the postscript: "P.S. Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, with my philosophy or with The Objectivist (formerly The Objectivist Newsletter)." A fairly neutral statement, it's not like "To Whom It May Concern" was added to the book.

As for acceptance of "Open Objectivism," there are still many at ARI who view David Kelley and anyone else affiliated with The Atlas Society, as being traitors to Objectivism or as "false Objectivists." The ARIans view Objectivism as a closed system composed only of Ayn Rand's writings. Open Objectivism is considered to be a heresy.

There was an important philosophic disagreement between David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff. Kelley himself admits this:

Unlike most previous purges and schisms in the Objectivist movement, this controversy is essentially philosophical. It's a parting of company over ideas, a conflict between two systematically different views about what Objectivism is, and what it means.

Source: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=39&h=34

Yes, denouncing someone for speaking to a libertarian group is silly, but the larger debate over moral sanction and what ideas are tolerable is important. In "A Question of Santion," Kelley writes:

"Soviet tyrants are not evil because they believe in Marxian collectivism. They are evil because they have murdered millions of people and enslaved hundreds of millions more."

I disagree with this. I believe that some ideas are inherently evil and the people who hold them are not worthy of my sanction. I might believe this specifically about an "academic Marxist" but I'll certainly believe it about a neo-Nazi, a member of the KKK or a supporter of Jihadism. I'm not going to call Kelley a "false Objectivist" because my disagreement with him, but it's a debate that's worth having.

People have made the point that people from ARI are now doing things that they have previously excommunicated others for. Yaron Brook is a frequent guest on Glenn Beck, a religious conservative and makes appearances on other conservative-based shows. Some might see this rank hypocrisy but I see it as progress. The most visible face of modern Objectivism, a man who is the head of an organization that has been accused of being completely orthodox on Objectivism and Ayn Rand, admitted on national television that Ayn Rand made mistakes in her personal life. The significance of this should not be overlooked.

John Allison made an important point about Rand's belief in rationality and the human mind as the source of all human progress, but not enough time was spend on it. I also believe it would have beneficial for there to have been some sort of explanation for the foundation of her philosophy: her metaphysics. Just a simple explanation of something like "A is A" or "Existence exists" would have sufficed. Obviously there were time constraints that would have prevented a complete explanation, but a short discussion on it would have been more fulfilling than silly sensationalism like a fish pedicure.