thezachcooper

I am surprised to log in, after my long hiatus, to find this has appeared. For a while I thought you had withheld it—sparing my young hide from making a mule of myself, Michael. The moment I submitted it, I disliked it. My style seemed too hot-blooded and too vengeful to describe any idea I might have possessed clearly and magnificently. Zach

Thank you for the reponses, one and each. I've been chewing on them for a while. I know what I want to do in life, roughly. I say roughly because I'm young enough to know my paths might change. I asked these questions not because I need advice but because I had trouble how Objectivism would handle career decisions. Vocations are "callings" and when we are "called" to do something we do not necessarily choose it. But, callings of this kind, what it is we do, are generally those things which we are interested in doing. Hence, we are "called" by our pleasure, or our self-interest. Yet, our interest in this thing, whatever it is, does not seem rationally determined. Philip, I would agree that because your nephew had erector sets he might have grown up in a certain direction. ... When I was younger I had legos, one of my favorite sets being a castle with different rooms for the figures to live in. However, now I see myself as a fiction writer as opposed to a medieval architect. It seems my word play took the foreground when I decided on what I could do with myself on this Earth. Perhaps because I cultivated a finer love of reading. Perhaps I cultivated such a love because I initially liked words to begin with! It is a very complicated matter I am sure, what makes one find one thing pleasing and another loathsome. Chris, I will certainly agree. Certain things, even about those things we love, are not enjoyable all the time.

How do you objectively, rationally decide on what you want to do? I suppose the best example of what I’m scrambling to illustrate is: one’s own vocation. Ayn Rand knew she wanted to be a writer from a very young age, or so I’ve read. In a Tom Snider interview that I’ve watched, she admitted to being bored in class and took up writing novels as a schoolgirl. Rand would say there are know innate facts, yet why did she decide to write novels instead of say, making new metal alloys? “Randen Steel,” for example. Could she say that she felt best suited to writing based on her personality, her traits? If there are no innate facts, and she didn’t intrinsically have a “writer’s build,” what made her think that she should express her heroic vision in novels rather than through architecture? Or, am I rubbing "innate facts" the wrong way? Would talent of a specialized kind count as an innate fact? If one wants to use objectivism to one’s benefit, one needs an entry point into reality. Witnessing reality is not enough. One needs to want to do something, to interact with those things around oneself, and this is where objectivism shines as a fine philosophical tool. However, can I rationally deduce what I want to be from all the potential choices of all the things that I could become? How does objectivism explain human variety? Human variety of vocations certainly relies on a subjective desire somewhere: I want to be a painter as opposed to a physicist, which is the most rational choice? Furthermore, Rand’s vision of capitalism, and any successful capitalist society, relies on people’s personal preferences of employment. If everyone decided to be a doctor, we’d soon starve. Are decisions between this or that profession objective, or subjective per se? In certain ways, objectivism has been used to deny human variety, as is the case with the orthodoxy, yes? That people should behave in the same ways, because it is only logical that they'd reach the same conclusions on how to exist, and in what manner. Yet, why should we, how should we, choose to spend our lives doing different things? Did Rand ever describe this initial choice we make to become the thing we want most to be? Are my questions clear? It seemed incredibly easy for Dagny and Francisco to make up their minds about their destinies. Not only did they inherit their employment from their families, they seemed to have a curiously innate filial affinity for their respective businesses. Curious...

Education, especially public education, is subject to the views and pretenses of elected officials and their friends, all the time. Violent activists like Bill Ayers are now "elementary education theorists" (Wikipedia). When I was in fifth grade, I had a textbook full of essays and short stories. One of these little essays told me that nearly every hamburger I ate meant a rainforest somewhere as being demolished and countless cute animals were going homeless. I distinctly remember a full-page picture within this section of the book: of a hamburger with a speech bubble extending out of it wherein a scene of mass deforestation was illustrated. Young children are incredibly impressionable, and the classroom is sadly the place where they start swallowing little bits of ideology without an opposing viewpoint. Objectivity makes a good education, but alternative views seldom find their way into the strongholds of schools, lest future voters find they agree with the other side.

I would like to try my brain at some of your thoughts. Your post is remarkably serendipitous, because I was thinking about some of the same things. The environment is surely very important, and businesses ought to be wise with how the dispose of their wastes or consume resources. However, I do not think that these abuses are a consequence of unfettered "Randian" Capitalism. It goes without saying, one of the keystones of Objectivist thinking is rational self-interest. Rand wouldn't have thought it up and not applied it to her economic theory. That is to say, rational self-interest is definitely an important part of her capitalist vision. By one's own self-responsibility and thoughtful pursuit of personal desires consequences which abet the lives of others result. Departing from rational self-interest can be damaging for oneself and others. I think improper disposal of such materials, as you mention, is a result not of Rand's Capitalism, but of poor business. How can I make a profit if I poison my customers? If I pollute their town's water supply, it's the same as selling them tainted meat: business gone awry. Also, how can I make a profit if I deplete the resources from which I produce my goods? The appropriate awareness is waking up to reason, and perhaps waking up to Randian Capitalism. I would like to add, prominent individuals have all kinds of wacky crusades, and each one of them has the figures to bolster their claims. Perhaps provided by researchers in their employ!

John, I think you are doing yourself a great disservice by not “coming out.” I think it’s very difficult for intellectual young men who happen to be interested in other men. Almost all subcultures have fools in abundance who let a tithe of their constitutions (creed, color, crotch or crotch of choice) govern their comportment. I have several homosexual friends, and I know: gay guys are no exception. Yet, there are those gay men who are everything but ridiculous and irrational. You yourself say so, too. Incidentally, these men are also very faithful to their partners and are the men worth chasing after. However, failing to broadcast your sexuality will not advertise you to your ideal man in their ranks. Consider that if you were “out and about” you’d stick out like a sore thumb among the pink nails, and maybe another rational, pensive (and handsome) guy would take notice. I hope that between when you first posted this and your reading this that you’ve given your situation some thought. I wish you the best in life and love. In one of your other points, you list romance as one of three elements of life. How do you intend to live without it then? Zach

or; Problems with Animal Rights and Environmentalism by Zachary Cooper “An environmentalist is a lot like a watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside.” "The only thing green about me is the money in my pocket!" Animal Rights and "Eco-Ethics" are usually ridiculed among Objectivists, Libertarians and other Free-Marketeers. This probably has to do with the Marxist precept driving popular considerations for animals. “From each according to his ability to each according to his need;” we have the ability to defend animals, and they, some would argue, need defending. A bird cannot tell humans its egg shells are thinning, one must write a book about it and become the advocate of a bird. An alligator would do well with human minds, and coincidentally human tax dollars, to keep from becoming a purse. Noam Chomsky, as he sticks out in my mind, takes this precept and rehashes it into a moral premise: that one who has must help the have-not, people of mind and money must spend their thoughts and capital on those who do not hold money and do not think. Environmentalists and other proponents of animal rights would also extend this to non-humans. Typically the interests of animals are always aligned with a highly anti-industrial agenda. Our needs are encroaching on theirs, and because they cannot defend themselves, the “enlightened” must crusade for them. I would admit whole-mindedly, that human needs impinge the needs of animals. The space our homes and factories take displace them from their habitats. The production of our luxuries, our CDs, DVDs, paperback novels, medicine, electricity, all requires usurping natural resources which they could otherwise chew on. Should we yield to them? This would clearly mean giving up our industries, cutting our skyscrapers, leveling our smokestacks. I really don’t need to say to my readers, especially on this forum, what happens when industry stops. Yet animal rights are their artifice to this end, quite thoroughly believing it’s the right path to a brave new world. This is the kind of thinker who says the whole of human progress technologically, culturally, and any facet, is a symbol of arrogance and vanity. This is the thinker who sees no value in intelligence, but plenty in ignorance. “Humans are responsible for war, literature, mathematics, and they think their so great. A dolphin swims free without any knowledge or need of these things, thoroughly happy.” It’s summarized in the slogan: “Earth first!” But if it came between a pig’s needs and the needs of those humans I love or admire (including myself, thank you)--you’d guess correctly if I put the human needs first. Moreover, I’d put human luxuries before an animal’s rights. If I want an extra glass of milk at a cow’s expense, I see no problem with that. I do not “need” this glass of milk, but I “want” it; thereby I increase a demand for milk which means I further the slavery of bovines. Feh! I have listened to the Animal-Rights types, the Watermelons, the Vegans, and I find serious problems with their thinking. Coincidentally, the problems I find with their thinking parallel the difficulties I have swallowing Marxist theory. “Ominous Parallels,” yes? They would decimate me to the value of a house cat ethically for the purpose of giving the house cat value. Akin to how a communist would decimate me to the lowest economic denominator for the sake of the poor. I consider both to be a violation of my rights to my life, my liberty, and my right to hold property. On one hand I’m told I don’t own my money, on the other that I don’t “own” my cat. Animals as comrades, one could say. After all, we’re already told that animals and humans are “brothers,” right? And this relationship should make me reconsider how I go about my life, and should be my leading concern. That is to say one’s actions should be governed by how it affects (or afflicts) animals, just as a socialist would like one to think about the poor first. Personal freedom to eat or wear animals should be inhibited for the sake of the animals. Personal wealth and means to that wealth should be inhibited for the sake of the poor. They would like to use political power to force people to respect animals in a certain light. They would like to achieve this power through the self-righteous upheaval of industry. They would say that they obey a superior moral code. I’ve known people who’ve guzzled this stuff down! I’ve been acquainted with vegans who considered it a moral duty to vandalize corporate venues, organize remonstrations that stop certain goods from making it to their destinations. Understandably, I attract an odd crowd, but I know this to be unusually common among the young Greens. “Sprouts,” yes? It is the smokestacks they deface, the tractors that they dismantle, the products they attempt to keep from the shelves, which feed them and me. They would declare that they are entirely right in what they do, and if I starve because they keep tortured chickens from being sold that I’ve starved for a good cause. Or perhaps, I deserve it because I decided not to eat solely vegetables. It’s the same thinking behind PETA associates who throw red paint on fur coats. They are not willing to respect other people, other people’s private property, or the rights of other people to their choices for the sake of the environment. Isn’t this sort of subjugation to a “moral” code for the animals, for the love of nature, reeking with the disturbing undertones of fundamentalism? Doesn’t this kind of behavior remind one of the new-found righteousness of some little punk advocating the bouleversement of the bourgeoisie? Granted, being a laissez-faire advocate, I, too, would like to see great change worldwide. But I wouldn’t do it by seizing public or private parks and burning them to cinders to make way for the new industrial revolution. I would much rather use intellect, words and wit to persuade minds to a new view of capitalism and limited government. Can the Sprouts say the same? Those of them who see no value in human intellect, words, wit, persuasion or the mind itself are coincidentally the loudest. Those of them who make it the bane of their existence to see “Earth first!” prevail are going to be the individuals who seize power and people’s attention through any coercion necessary. Of course, I am sure that there are calm, rational people within the environmentalist movement, within the animal-rights movement. However, these are not the ones who screech the loudest. They are the tragic idealists giving way to mean little human-haters, with an otherwise noble argument: let’s keep this Earth in working order--it’s in our self-interest. Another issue with this school of thought is the vague pretext of a respect for life. It is argued that the animal rights movement, from whose womb vegetable diets emerged, comes from a respect for life. As I hope to’ve evinced above, it certainly doesn’t respect human life. How far should it be extended? If a human life and an animal life should be considered similar, why not plants? Plants respond to stimuli of all kinds, touch, sound, light. They are living things, why’ve we any business eating them if we respect life? It would be one thing if animal rights were an entirely separate issue from environmentalism. However, there is difficulty in splitting these Siamese twins, and even more difficulty cutting the iron umbilical cord attached to mother Marx. I cannot keep the ideas of animal rights contained without considering the rest of the Green movement. It’s very much a package deal because of the assumptions underscoring the arguments used by the screaming greens. Inevitably these egalitarian movements are hijacked by thugs who care nothing for the ideals, and everything about power. Consider Soviet Russia, innocent homosexuals being sent to the gulags, regardless if they were needy, poor or underprivileged, because they were enemies of state. They could never reproduce of their own will to bring more bodies into this world for the use of the government. So I guess not everybody is a comrade after all. What a pity, как жаль. How far after green interests have center stage until they will be used as the façade for the slants of those in power? Isn’t already being used in this way? The Lilliputians are binding us up with eco-friendly smiles but bad politics and anti-individual underpinnings. I would argue that the best for the environment is capitalism, and uninhibited human greed in the marketplace. Selfishness is the guardian of animals, the atmosphere, and the redwoods. Why? O! Oist, why dost though ask? Human beings are the arbiters of value on this Earth, and we do a fair job at it. The environmentalists I’ve talked to over pita bread usually believe that animals have a value in themselves. Without human beings, no value could be attached to animals at all. Animals cannot conceive of values what so ever, it takes us to give them value, whether it be as pets, pelts or pieces on a plate (or Petri dish). Because we have value in nature, for whatever reason, we’d be interested in its conservation. We will only conserve, however, what we’d like to use. I do not think most people would be interested in preserving something they could never use to some end. People keep china cups in cabinets that they’ll never drink out of, but they like to look at them, collect them show them off. I am sure there is no great shortage of showy little china cups, what is more people seek to keep them in pristine condition. If a state park were privately owned by a redwood enthusiast, he has the incentive to keep these beautiful trees in perhaps better condition. He is not at the mercy of pandering to government grants; he can build a fortune among his own, interested in the study and aesthetics of redwoods. In turn, his highly selfish conservation of these trees for the beauty he sees in them, goes into furthering their protection from those who’d like to cut down the trees. Furthermore, he is not extorting money through taxes from other people who don’t see the beauty in redwoods. Even someone who owns such a property interested in providing redwood for construction has an interest in preserving the redwood. If he cuts down all his trees he cannot continue to sell them for wood! If a man is interested in selling chickens for their meat, he’d better make sure he doesn’t cause their extinction. The same goes for the makers of fur coats, animal-hide rugs, or the breeders and sellers of livestock and pets. Our selfish interest in animals is how we maintain their species, and their health I might add: no one wants to eat a sickly chicken, or milk from a diseased cow. The market would weed out individuals who try to sell infected or poor quality animal products, encouraging their keepers to take better care of them. To argue that animals shouldn't be tampered with at all would be denying us numerous products and medical advances so some people can live without a sense of self-imposed guilt. They can already circumvent that guilt by simply buying veggie-burgers, cruelty-free cosmetics, and send money to as many zoos and sanctuaries as they wish. They do not have the right to tighten my freedom and decide for me what I need or want. What are our current eco-friendly principles teaching future generations about man and beast? I would like to conclude with an anecdote. I was in middle school at the time, and we were watching a film in class. It was towards the end of the school year, so the teachers decided to show us something fun. It was some movie about rescuing an animal, with some animals as featured characters. One of the animals in this film began dying and this caused an upset among my classmates. “It’s weird,” one girl said, “I don’t feel bad when a person dies in a movie, but when an animal dies, it’s always really sad…”

Michael, No apologies are necessary! I should hope you keep yourself busy. It’s a pleasure to come aboard! Thank you very much! Zach

Thank you, one and all, for the warm welcome! Chris, Brant says it for me: I’m already in college, and I’ve since stated my major. Though I am happy to spark your curiosity. I’m glad we agree that my school was in the clutches of literary poverty! Hi Brant! I am pleased to take your suggestions! I have a lot to say, and plenty of passions. I refuse anything less than success. Robert, I think most English teachers have low opinions of Rand's work. My English teacher never revealed her opinion totally on The Fountainhead. She did however print copies of an online parody of the book for my class, whereas she looked sore when I made a quick critique of The Color Purple. Strange enough, her husband (who happened to be the department head) remarked that both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were "life-changing." I hold it’s important to read a little bit of everything. Yet there is, without a doubt, little equity between the literary canon of despair and the one of inspiration in the classroom. Adam, I’m afraid that would be a penetration of my privacy. At the present time, I don’t want to disclose too much information about my merely personal life here. Also, my parents are towing most of the bill presently, I do not think they’d like it if I announced to the world where they were spending it. I hope you don’t take umbrage with that. I haven’t taken too many courses in either of my majors. My intention was to knock down as many general education requirements as possible first. However, from the course listing, and chats with members of the Writing department, I’ll try and illustrate the distinction being made. The biggest is that the “W&R” major deals completely with non-fiction writing, with the exception of literary non-fiction. There are courses in travel writing, writing in “electronic environments,” as well as courses in argumentative and persuasive writing. I’m imagining that rhetorical theory must be taught and applied in these courses, as well as the basics like how to organize one’s paragraphs. Thank you for the website. I will be sure to comb it over thoroughly! --Zach

Hello everyone! After some time of floating among the posts like an anonymous phantom, I’ve decided to join. I’m nearly choking with anticipation: I can hear the hinges on many doors flinging open to new thoughts, perspectives and evaluations. I am nineteen, and will be a college sophomore in the fall. I’m focusing presently as a double-major in English and “Writing and Rhetoric”. I don’t think I have to say it but: I want to become a great writer. Words have always been a feverish passion of mine, and all of my first intellectual love affairs have been with words. Even when I was very young my parents would set off lexical fireworks at home very frequently, and they still do. To my utter delight, their most dazzling synonyms and verbs (I like verbs especially) weren’t the only ones out there in the far orbits of the English language. There were new words to know and to use in books and dictionaries, words for all sorts of things. Thus, my sojourn to grandiloquence began! My father has some of Ayn Rand’s books on a bookshelf. I remember him mentioning Anthem to me when I was younger. However it would be some years and plenty of new words later until I’d actually touch one of her novels. It made such a change. It would seem highly unlikely that any of her prose would’ve made it into any English class I could hope to take at my High School. When one of my teachers would sit in for an absent colleague, this individual would place “A=A” in the corner of the chalkboard and calmly slash through the equals sign. They also liked entertaining students’ questions about it. Furthermore, considering of the titles my classmates and I were assigned since middle school into high school, any of Ayn Rand’s work couldn’t help but stick out. Not so much like a sore thumb, but like a skyscraper in a field of wheat yielding to the wind. I did not have an easy time being a teenager. Books (and plays) like The Giver, The Secret Life of Bees, Death of a Salesmen, A Lesson Before Dying, The Color Purple, or All My Sons, did not help me. While the books are not to blame, they were spices of the phenomenal confusion, frustration, guilt, shame and sense of worthlessness which distorted and benighted my otherwise sparkling character. It could not have gotten much worse; I mean it. By the time I was a senior I was an intelligent slacker, slithering by on twinkles of great insight. I was given a copy of The Fountainhead to read for my AP English class, possibly only because the budget was tight and the copies were courtesy of the ARI. I barely made it halfway through before I fell behind with the assigned reading pace and stopped reading it altogether. The words which did sink in lit a small candle in my mind. My classmates thought the book was somewhat ridiculous, and were uncomfortable reading it. They were very pleased when the class moved on to read Siddhartha, a much thinner volume indeed. I took time to look into Rand. I’ve always been a little capitalist, and here was someone I could learn from. Serendipitously, soaking up what I could something became clear to me. An effort could be made, and should be made if one seeks an end product. Also, that the quality of the end product was greatly contingent on the effort given. No middleman, no wispy gobbledygook about God, phases of the moon, or limits written in genes, could thwart this from being true. Whatever it was, I could do it, and do it well, I just needed to apply myself. From this one spark, an entire inner chandelier burst into countless more illuminations. If I could do something of value, by that potential alone, I was not worthless. I am a living breathing human creature, A is A! That’s utterly fantastical, but true! And I am delighted by that truth, moved by it even. In due course, I also realized that I could only be worthless, shameful or disgusting if I had made that decision. The more I realized how much of my life was in my hands, and how capable those hands were, the more frustrations and low feelings peeled off of me. I relearned confidence and self-esteem, and resurfaced from an abyss. Needless to say: I owe quite a bit to Rand. And I might add, to other hidden thinkers as well. A copy of Atlas Shrugged sits on my desk. I’m over halfway through and intend to read to the end. Afterwards, I plan on finishing that copy of The Fountainhead which my school was so quick to get rid of it and let me keep. In addition, did very well at my university these past two semesters and through no small effort. I look forward to doing even better. I am elated the things of this universe are knowable, and I intend to fill my head in heaping spoonfuls at a time. I look forward to being among new and active minds! Positively, Cooper P.S. I apologize for any gratuitous semicolons. I get carried away with independent clauses.