Revisiting Rand's Peripheral Issues

[Peter]

I would appreciate it, if some Objectivists would find my errors in writing or thinking, or if I needlessly repeat myself, because I have time to edit this.

Thanks,

Peter

My post is based on Roger Bissell’s article concerning the attributes of a child before birth printed in 1981 in “Reason Magazine.” I will examine the issue of Abortion from the perspective of an Objectivist for other Objectivists.

Part one.

As I integrated the philosophy of Ayn Rand I knew she wrote well and sounded true. Years later, I began to parse some of her peripheral issues that had accumulated a lot of critics, such as air pollution, smoking, abortion, and a woman president. All Objectivists are required by the definition of *Objectivism* to use reason and *contextual-ism* as their means of examining the writings of Ayn Rand and to look at her philosophy from a perspective of the forty or fifty years that have passed since she wrote it. We should examine her writings, just as we use our reason to examine what Aristotle wrote twenty-three centuries ago. We need to do this using the knowledge and tools available today.

None of Ayn Rand’s heroes deferred to authority. For an Objectivist practicing her philosophy, reason is our absolute, not reverence or awe. None of Ayn Rand’s “followers,” when integrating her philosophy, should defend her subjectively, nor accept everything she wrote as “gospel.” Proving her wrong on side issues does not invalidate the essence of her philosophy.

I will start near the beginning of The Ayn Rand Lexicon and examine one peripheral issue *Abortion* using the first lines from her definition.

From the letter “A” in “The Ayn Rand Lexicon”:

Quote

Abortion

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

End quote

Using the above definition, here are the definitions from Merriam Webster Online, of her words, EMBRYO, RIGHTS, AND LIFE /LIVING. I will zero in on the sub-meaning Ayn Rand used from her definition of Abortion:

Quote

EMBRYO

b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation . . . especially the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

RIGHTS, or more exactly, HUMAN RIGHTS

as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons

LIVING

1 a : having life

LIFE

b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings

c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

end quote

Now I will begin my critical, contextual analysis.

“An embryo has no rights.”

Rand’s definition is correct in that sentence and she is correct in the next sentence that states, “Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being.” It is true using the definition of embryo, as up the eighth week after conception. When she uses the phrase “only to an actual being” she must logically mean a *person*, since normal human embryos naturally become persons. There is an actual human being in the mother from conception onwards, at a particular stage of development. However, that being may not YET be a *person*, which I will explain.

Rand next writes that, “A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”

Again from Merriam Webster, Rand is using the sub-meaning of Human Rights, as “freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution as belonging fundamentally to all persons”. Ayn Rand is wrong if it can be shown that a *person* exists before birth.

Rand’s next phrase is: “The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”

Rand is correct. “The living take precedence over the not-yet-living.” However, a living baby is never the “not-yet-living.” It is alive by definition. And Rand is only partially correct when she says, “or the unborn,” if it can be proven that a human always exists after conception within the mother and that a *PERSON* exists after a certain stage of development. Birth, or any change in location, is not the cause of the change from non rights bearing human to rights bearing *person*.

I will NOT parse her words any further at this point. My readers have the tools and perspective to do that. Ayn Rand continues in The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Quote

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

End quote

“Who can conceivably have the right to dictate,” Ayn Rand asks? I won’t dictate but I can assert the truth that I am contextually upholding individual human rights. As the reader parses that statement, consider the logical reminder that while A is A, AB is not A, unless entity B is subtracted from the equation.

Part two

Ayn Rand had no public questions about when a *person* exists or other technicalities. She never officially changed her position of when humans possess *rights* which she claimed was immediately after birth. Nor did she ever officially change her stance on the *absolute* right of a woman to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy. Ayn Rand did classify humans in the womb by age, as in “up to two months,” which is the definition of *embryo*, and she mentions that she is not considering in her formulation a baby living in its last trimester.

As an Objectivist, I am NOT comfortable with the moral (and now legal issue) of *abortion* in the last trimester. Rand showed some evolution in contextual thinking based upon the medical science available at that time, but as I said, she never revised her official position.

In "The Comprachicos," Rand said around 1970:

quote

At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness -- the mechanism of a human consciousness -- but no content. Speaking metaphorically, he has a camera with an extremely sensitive unexposed film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious). Both are blank. He knows nothing of the external world.

End quote

Science advanced in the late 1970’s and we now know that the Baby is not a blank slate. When a baby is inside its mother's womb, the baby is already in the world. The womb is not a sensory‑deprivation tank. Light and sound enter. The Baby’s neurons are firing after the 24th to 28th week of gestation.

In The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Thomas Verney, M.D., writes

quote

. . . . from the sixth month of intrauterine life (and sometimes even earlier) the unborn child is a feeling, experiencing, remembering being who responds to and is deeply influenced by his environment.

End quote

One case study mentioned in the book cites this example:

Quote

A woman plays a cello piece often during her pregnancy; in later life her child knows the score of that piece by heart before he ever plays it.

End quote

In other words if you hum a bit of the melody, the child who frequently experienced that music in the womb can hum the rest of the bar of music FROM MEMORY.

Canadian Objectivist Ellen Moore who once taught courses through the Nathaniel Branden Institute, continued teaching Objectivism into the 1990’s, and who agreed with the official Objectivist stance wrote:

quote

. . . . The thing is, it never occurred to me that knowledgeable Objectivists took literally the idea of "tabula rasa". It is a metaphor, and at the very least an inaccurate simile. The mind is not a "slate", and I know of no evidence that the neurons in the newborn brain are "blank". There is much misunderstanding in taking such a literal approach, and I do not think Objectivism is at fault for causing it. You know, "using common sense" is a good place to start. Identification of the structure and content in the neurons of the newborn brain is a topic for scientific research . . . . I do not think that Rand went beyond the claim of scientific information available as it was in her lifetime.

End quote

Many scientists and obstetricians like Representative Ron Paul agree that after the Baby is conscious, or even before that instant, it is in no way a blank slate and that the issue of when a Baby in the womb is a *person* is settled. This issue is also being addressed by philosophers, Doctor’s colleges, ethics committees and the Courts. What cases should do they consider? Here are some examples.

Case one.

A caesarian section or induced labor is one way to think of delivering a living Baby that mimics a non - lethal abortion procedure. The Baby is born before the end of its gestation period but has the brain wave patterns of a freely born baby and is viable outside the mother’s womb.

The baby, in this case, is universally considered to have “the rights of a person.”

Case two.

Should an aborted, viable baby have “the rights of a person?” Medical Ethicists and an overwhelming number of obstetricians say, yes. Birth is also the deciding factor according to the official Objectivist stance, so the official Objectivist stance is, yes.

The baby, in this second case, is considered to have “the rights of a person,” except by some potential mothers, their sympathizers, and some abortion doctors. As an Independent Objectivist venturing forward with this thinking, I maintain that this is a moral and legal ethics issue different from a religious point of view that asserts a person is created upon conception. And I agree with Official Objectivism, that the aborted but living Baby should have rights.

Part Three

Ayn Rand’s official definition of a woman’s right to an abortion is a side issue of her concept *Man’s Rights*. This side issue was born of the radical sixties and before that, the rise of Feminism, and horror stories of women who had “illegal” back alley abortions. Two biographers “have some evidence” that Ayn Rand had an abortion. This information came from a relative of Miss Rand’s who lives in the United States.

She was friends with Rose Wilder Lane, daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder who wrote the beloved "Little House on the Prairie" children's books, Isabel Paterson, author of “The God of the Machine,” and Edith Efron, author of “The Feminine Mystique. They were all feminists.

Abortion is a unique political and medical issue from that time, because The Christian Religion had banished this medical procedure from polite, legal society, and criminalized the woman and the doctor who performed the abortion. That was a horrible injustice. History can provide a backdrop to what was written and thought at that time. Am I saying this as an excuse or alibi for Ayn Rand’s thinking? No. She arrived at her conclusions using reason. I maintain that on this side issue of abortion, Ayn Rand was at the forefront of progressive reasoning. Roe v Wade was enacted in 1973.

Separation from a place does not change a potential to an actual, nor does remaining in a place change the nature of a being. Rand’s concept of “not-yet-living (or the unborn)” is in error. It is not scientifically valid. A LIVING human being, whatever its stage of development, is living inside the mother, even if it is unborn.

Do Ayn Rand’s statements somehow change the imputation of rights? Is there a change in a child before and after birth, based on the fact that it is beholden upon its mother for life itself? And does this transformation occur because of the thoughts and words that Ayn Rand wrote? No. That would be a logical fallacy. Let us use simple logic.

Let us term “A” stand for the mother and “B” for the baby before brain wave activity similar to that of an adult, commences and B+ as a baby after brain wave activity similar to an adults, commences.

A is A. B is B. AB is not A, unless B is subtracted from the equation.

BA is not B, unless A is subtracted from the equation.

B (residing within the being of A at one day of existence) is still B since location does not change its nature.

B (residing within A, yet viable outside the mother) is B.

B (at the spark of consciousness becomes) B+. It was B but now has the addition of consciousness changing its potential to an actuality.

B+ (residing within A just before birth) is B+

Therefore, B+ (residing outside of A) is B+

It is not Non B nor does it revert back to B.

A baby is always a baby. An unthinking baby has the potential of being a thinking baby. After the development of consciousness a thinking baby is always a thinking baby. So when should rights be conferred? After it becomes separate from its mother’s body? Ayn Rand says “Yes.” I say, “No.” Its nature does not change at birth. How one views a baby as rights bearing (or not) does not change its nature.

Based upon its nature it is always a human being, but before the ignition of that special spark of consciousness, it is still a human, and deserving of all the consideration we give a human, but the human embryo is still not yet a *person*. Neither conception or birth are relevant to the granting of rights.

It’s nature changes it to a *person* when it begins thinking like a person, and not when it is no longer needy and inside the womb. Both a BORN baby and an older child are separate from their mother but still needy. Neediness does not affect the imputation of rights to a thinking child outside the womb, nor should it affect the imputation of rights inside the womb.

This argument is the law in several states and will undoubtedly make it to the Supreme Court making it the law of the land. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, nor should it be overturned. The battle should be to keep Roe v. Wade as law but with one huge modification. I will let you think about that one modification As disagreeable as you may or may not be, think about it. Discover the right answer through reason not recitation of a forty year old definition. Discover it via a healthy psycho-epistemology. THAT is the Objectivist way.

Part Four

If an Objectivist says, there is an exact time which is implied by definition of "human being", and that is when a baby is born that is scientifically incorrect. A fetus is not a potential human being. It is a human being.

We may be at odds over terminology and a wrinkle in Randian philosophy. Let us clear up one point. When the sperm and egg unite what is *created* is a human being - at that stage of development. A day later it is a one day old human being. There is a continuity of existence from that first unification of human sperm and egg. It never ceases to be a human being, biologically, until death and then it is still a dead human being.

My terminology, which I maintain is more scientific than Rand’s, is that a normal human while it exists in the womb, is always a *potential person,* no matter its state of development. I think that is what we are discussing. When is a baby a *person*? When is a human, a person possessing rights? I see a modification in Ayn Rand’s stance as contextual knowledge was gained during her lifetime modifying the instant that *potential* becomes *rights bearing*.

I have looked and looked for the source of one of my semi quotes but I cannot find it, I must have gotten it from correspondence from another Objectivist. I will repeat it from memory. Briefly, the story goes that a “mature Ayn Rand” was kind of ambushed and asked some quick questions by a big fan, (it may have been Doris Gordon from “Libertarians for Life.” Imagine sitting outside her apartment hour after hour waiting for Ayn Rand to emerge!)

One of the questions asked was does a baby one minute before birth have the rights of a person? And Ayn Rand said yes. The second question was what if a mother who is aborting her baby, and during the procedure, the baby happens to be delivered alive and viable. Does the aborting mother have a right to a dead baby? And Ayn Rand is reported to have said No she does not have that right. I won’t dignify this with quotes but I think it could be true. Regardless of its veracity, if you look at the Lexicon you will see an evolution of thought in Ayn Rand.

Should an aborted baby excised before the end of its gestation period but that has the brain wave patterns of a freely born baby, and is viable outside the mother’s womb have “the rights of a person?” Yes, this is true and this is part of Objectivism.

Should a delivering / aborting doctor have the right to kill the baby? According to the official Objectivist stance of the imputation of rights upon birth, NO. Yet some Objectivists say that is NOT the official Objectivist stance.

To reiterate, I maintain that the moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique BRAIN is in existence within its mother.

THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. It’s rights are modified at birth. Its rights that were secondary to its mothers because it was dependent upon her for its existence, now change to equal to the mothers. This normal baby is thinking as evidenced by the brain wave patterns alpha, delta and theta that are also found in thinking adults.

A good measure of Aristotle’s and Rand’s law of identity is that they are based on the facts of reality as we observe them. After consciousness a fetus becomes a *person*. There are things in the universe that a person in the womb cannot know because it is not yet aware of them. For millennia humans did not know about the dark side of the moon. That does not affect my argument. Omniscience is not required of a *person*. Conceptual thinking is not required for a human child to be granted rights.

I agree that a mother’s rights ALWAYS trump the unborn baby’s rights but at some point there is a person on board, and an abortion at that point, without JUST CAUSE would be similar to an airline pilot jettisoning a stowaway.

The official Objectivist stance is over forty years old and many Objectivists maintain that Ayn Rand is dead and so her Philosophy will stay as it is, and not be extended.

I UNDERSTAND THIS POINT, but I must also logically disagree on a technicality. Why has ARI issued a book on induction as an advancement of Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy? When OPAR was issued some complained that Doctor Peikoff had changed Rand’s thinking, YET, OPAR still stands as Her Philosophy.

This position of official vs unofficial Objectivism is a minor quibble and not what I wish to discuss. I am NOT suggesting big “O” Objectivism as written by Ayn Rand should be edited. I have heard the arguments about calling modern day contextual Objectivism, little o’ism, or Independent objectivism, etc., to reflect the facts as we NOW know them to be. That is the philosophy I am trying to change, not what Rand wrote. As more facts are gathered, those can change, though not the axioms. <BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

To suggest that a change can occur within a part of Objectivism is not absurd. I am not saying we change the writings of Ayn Rand. CHANGE NOTHING that she wrote.

I do not want any modern guardian of the Politically Correct to change her fictional or essay writings, editing out smoking, or something else deemed not quite right by today’s standards. Someone, if not Mr Binswanger, editor of “The Ayn Rand Lexicon, will someday create an Objectivist Lexicon based on the Philosophy of Ayn Rand which will modify its stance on abortion and other issues. It will occur. Life marches on. Science marches on. Philosophy marches on. More knowledge is acquired at an ever accelerating rate. Rand is our heritage. She demanded that we think for ourselves.

Accept that a thinking baby inside the womb is a person, because it is. At this point, the situation between the mother and her thinking baby is analogous to the dilemma of Siamese twins when one will die, if they are not separated. If one must be sacrificed, then so be it. However, if the baby can be delivered alive, then that is the objective thing to do.

In conclusion, in the contexts of Ayn Rand’s life at various times, her positions on abortion were *justified* though they were not *true belief* which is what we also call a *fact*. To this day pro-abortion proponents will argue that Consciousness in a baby that has gestated for 28 week is not a valid prerequisite for the imputation of rights; it must be born. I maintain that the moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique BRAIN is in existence inside its mother.

THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. A study of personal identity is not mysterious if you are talking about yourself. And it is still child’s play if we are talking about someone else. To be a bit silly let me posit a case of uncertain identity: “Mom? Is that you? Well, Mom, I can ‘t be sure. What is the password?”

How do we know a person’s identity persists? And how do we re-identify ourselves in the morning after awakening, or another person if we have not seen them since last month? Human beings have the least trouble re-identifying themselves or someone else, yet once again, pro-abortion rights group say there is no rights bearing entity present until after birth.

If it looks like a baby human, and it thinks like a baby human, it is a baby human. If it can be demonstrated that many of the modes of thinking are present at the age of 28 weeks of gestation, that are also present in a mature, conceptually thinking adult, then it obviously is a human person at a younger age.

To reiterate: fMRI’s show that a conscious fetus, sleeps, dreams and can redirect its attention. The fact of personal identity is primary: it is self-evident to you that you exist. You are conscious. You remember. Outside of Science Fiction, personal identity in yourself or others can be demonstrated, through brain wave patterns and physical presence.

Sound is present in the womb and the baby pays attention to the sounds it hears, and remembers them. When my daughter Sarah was born a tray was dropped by a nurse, over to baby Sarah’s left. She instantly turned her head left to look at the source of the sound. The nurse assured me that was normal unless a baby was lethargic from anti-pain shots given to the Mother.

The persistence of consciousness from its inception onwards, is self-evident. It exists at some point and does not cease to exist until death (which could also be complete and irreversible mental loss, though the body lives on.) A conscious baby in the womb is the same conscious baby out of the womb, and it will grow into the same conscious adult: this embodies the Law of Identity.

If we could only speak to Ayn Rand today. What would she change in her philosophy? Would she agree with me? It would be wondrous if Ayn Rand revisited all of her works and within her PRESENT context make her writings *justified* and *true*.

I will say, “Roger Bissell’s theory on the attributes of a human in the womb is true. Good work, Roger!”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Notes:

George H. Smith wrote on page 77 of "WHY ATHEISM?":

A contextual theory of knowledge, in my judgment, must strike a delicate balance between relativism and absolutism. And this is precisely why we should retain the traditional view that knowledge is justified *and* true belief. Justification is relative, whereas truth is absolute. That is to say, what counts as adequate justification for a belief may be relative to the available evidence and one’s context of knowledge, whereas the truth of a belief is absolute. A proposition either corresponds to a fact or it does not, and this matter has nothing to do with the relative justification for a belief . . . ."

end quote

What Ayn Rand considered to be a part of her philosophy may differ from what the Ayn Rand Institute and The Objectivist Center consider a part of her philosophy.

Here are her positions.

Women as Presidents (or political leaders in general)

In the January 1968 issue of *McCall's* magazine, Rand wrote, "A woman cannot reasonably want to be a commander-in-chief." A year later in January 1969, Rand wrote an article entitled "About a Woman President" for *The Objectivist* (which appeared in the December 1968 issue and was later reprinted in her anthology, *The Voice of Reason* (1988). In that article, she again stated, "I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president." [*The Voice of Reason*, p. 267] She also stated that being president "for a rational woman would be an unbearable situation," adding, "And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the presidency or for any important position, anyway." [ibid., p. 269]

I think that Rand's views on this issue also qualify as a part of her philosophy, since what she regards as "rational" and "not rational" are a part of it. Again, however, it is the position of ARI that Rand's views on a woman president are NOT part of her philosophy.

Because Rand's views on homosexuality and on a female president are so out of step with contemporary enlightened thinking, Objectivist organizations are in denial about them. Rather than admit that she was wrong, they prefer to deny that her views on these subjects are part of her philosophy, thereby conveying the impression that Objectivism is a cult of personality in which the founder's philosophy must be seen as infallible.

3. air pollution

In her article, "The Left: Old and New" in *The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution*, Rand wrote"

"As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem. In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc." [p. 89]

Based on this statement, I would say that air pollution is addressed by her philosophy only insofar as pollution can be seen as infringing on individual rights.

4. cigarette smoking

I don’t have any quotes from her. Some of Ayn Rand’s characters smoked. She glamorized it in her book, “Atlas Shrugged.” I would say that whether or not Objectivism considers it rational to smoke depends on the context of a person's life and on the degree to which he or she engages in the practice, and that smoking is bad decision, health wise. All action involves risk from driving a car to taking an elevator. Recently at a high school writing contest involving Atlas Shrugged was stopped because of parent’s concern about the books glamorization of smoking.

Beethoven's sense of life and how music does or does not convey a rational sense of life.

I have no quotes. Rand is on record as stating that, unlike the visual arts, an objective esthetics of music has yet to be rationally demonstrated. Some East Indian citizens proved to her satisfaction that though she disliked classical Indian music in was as complex as Western Classical Music and founded on similar mathematical principles.

Homosexuality.

During a Q&A session following a lecture in 1971, a questioner said to Rand that she "read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral." The questioner then asked, "If this is so, why?"

Rand answered:

Quote

Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting."

End quote

Fan of Rand, Bill Dwyer wrote:

Quote

Since Rand labeled homosexuality "immoral" - and since ethics is a branch of Objectivism - I think it is reasonable to infer that her views on that subject *are* a part of her philosophy, although the current position of both ARI and TOC is that Objectivism does NOT regard homosexuality as immoral.

End quote

Edited May 9, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[anthony]

Good work at tying up one major 'loose end' of Objectivism, Peter.

Well done, I agree with all of it.

Tony

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

Good work at tying up one major 'loose end' of Objectivism, Peter.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

Well done, I agree with all of it.

End quote

Thanks, Tony. Check out the other issues at the end. Care to take on one of those?

I used to be an English teacher and was certified to teach grades 5 through 12 in the US states of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. (I know, my own writing could stand an edit and has errors in grammar.)

I was thinking about involving myself in a twelfth grade writing contest for Atlas Shrugged but encountered stiff resistance from parents due to the glamorization of smoking.

My own Dad had just died from smoking related disease, and I was a bit of a zealot on the issue. I wrote Leonard Peikoff asking him to put a disclaimer about smoking somewhere on the cover of all new additions of AS. He never wrote back.

We have had two recent letters in our local paper about Objectivism and The Tea Party. One person complained that Rand was a hypocrite because she accepted her Husband Frank's social security checks after he died and she used Medicare to pay for her lung cancer. Has anyone else heard this?

Rand was ably defended the next day by Michael Kitz-Miller who I seem to remember meeting but I cannot remember when or how.

Peter Taylor

[anthony]

My own Dad had just died from smoking related disease, and I was a bit of a zealot on the issue. I wrote Leonard Peikoff asking him to put a disclaimer about smoking somewhere on the cover of all new additions of AS. He never wrote back.

We have had two recent letters in our local paper about Objectivism and The Tea Party. One person complained that Rand was a hypocrite because she accepted her Husband Frank's social security checks after he died and she used Medicare to pay for her lung cancer. Has anyone else heard this?

Rand was ably defended the next day by Michael Kitz-Miller who I seem to remember meeting but I cannot remember when or how.

Peter Taylor

Peter,

Yes. I vaguely recall Rand said, or indicated, it was not immoral to accept that which was yours -- ie, that she and Frank had made the payments to social security, (compelled to, I suppose), and now she would collect. Something like that.

I took up smoking in my last year of high school, 4-5 years before I read Rand, not that I perceived any undue glamorization of it in the novels.

What can I say? It's not rational, and I won't try to defend it, except that it is (still) my only bad habit. Thankfully, so far, I'm in good shape. Without it, it's very likely I'd have been the picture of good health!

(But not as thin.)

Tony

Edited May 8, 2011 by whYNOT

[studiodekadent]

We have had two recent letters in our local paper about Objectivism and The Tea Party. One person complained that Rand was a hypocrite because she accepted her Husband Frank's social security checks after he died and she used Medicare to pay for her lung cancer. Has anyone else heard this?

Peter,

Yes. I vaguely recall Rand said, or indicated, it was not immoral to accept that which was yours -- ie, that she and Frank had made the payments to social security, (compelled to, I suppose), and now she would collect. Something like that.

Indeed. Rand argued that it wasn't hypocrisy for a libertarian to benefit from government programs since they had their money expropriated by the government to fund them in the first place. She made this argument, IIRC, in the mid-60's, long before she accepted any welfare herself (thus it can't be accused of being a post hoc rationalization).

As for the smoking issue, I smoke occasionally and appreciate the symbolism in AS. However, I'm aware that its SYMBOLISM and if anyone, these days, treats that symbolism as an endorsement of chain-smoking-as-a-moral-imperative then I think they're simply attempting to discredit the book's ideas without engaging with them.

[Peter]

Studiodekadent wrote:

As for the smoking issue, I smoke occasionally and appreciate the symbolism in AS. However, I'm aware that its SYMBOLISM and if anyone, these days, treats that symbolism as an endorsement of chain-smoking-as-a-moral-imperative then I think they're simply attempting to discredit the book's ideas without engaging with them.

End quote

I will start a thread called Smoking and start it off with some old letters on the subject.

Peter Taylor

Edited May 9, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[GALTGULCH8]

).

As for the smoking issue, I smoke occasionally and appreciate the symbolism in AS. However, I'm aware that its SYMBOLISM and if anyone, these days, treats that symbolism as an endorsement of chain-smoking-as-a-moral-imperative then I think they're simply attempting to discredit the book's ideas without engaging with them.

The lining of the bronchi, which are the tubes through which air passes on its way into the lungs, is called pseudo stratified, ciliated, columnar epithelium. There is a single layer of tall, hence columnar, cells forming a sheet of cells in which are dispersed mucus secreting cells. The tips of the columnar cells have fingerlike projections which undulate, are called cilia, and serve to move inhaled dust and the like, caught by the sticky mucus, up and out of the bronchi where it can be coughed out. Nuclei can be seen within the columnar cells and are at different levels giving the appearance of several layers but careful observation reveals that there is just one layer of columnar cells.

It is nature's self cleaning mechanism and it works well. However, smoking just one cigarette a day will cause this remarkable mechanism to change by being replaced by a structure virtually identical to the skin. Skin is called stratified squamous epithelium and is composed of a live basal layer of cells which divide in a continuous process essentially replacing sloughed off cells at the surface with dead cells underneath. No mucus cells to trap dust, no cilia to move it up and out, instead a dry tube. The process is called squamous metaplasia meaning that the amorphous flat cells of the skin change place, metaplasia, and replace the normal bronchial epithelium.

Two more points. The change is anaplastic meaning precancerous and can give rise to tumors in the bronchi.

Importantly the process is reversible. If you refrain from smoking altogether the normal lining will regenerate within a month or two.

Why this isn't taught in the public schools I don't know. But then I am equally baffled by the failure of the schools to teach the next generation so many things such as that the founders limited the powers granted to the Congress and even listed them, enumerated them so to speak, in Article 1 Section 8, for all to see.

I met Miss Rand at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston, where she was kind enough to sign copies of Atlas or The Fountainhead. I waited in line and there she was with her cigarette holder in hand, puffing away in complete ignorance of the harm she was doing to her lungs. So sad. Why didn't i take the opportunity to explain to her. In retrospect I should have asked her for the opportunity to speak with her in the future. She was a somewhat intimidating presence.

I saw the movie again today. I had to drive quite a ways to the outskirts of New Bedford, MA. I got there just in time and when I told the ticket lady I wanted to see Atlas Shrugged, she called out number 7 to a fellow who was out of sight. Evidently I was to be all alone in the theater for this 4:20 in the afternoon showing. The ticket cost $5.50.

I do think that the actress who played Dagny did "nail it." I thought she did get into the roll and didn't just read her lines. I can imagine a bit more intensity in dealing with the union rep.

In any case I am glad Aglialoro made the movie and do hope someone with the means helps fund parts two and three.

I hope you smokers out there make up your minds to stop altogether for the sake of your health.

[studiodekadent]

I hope you smokers out there make up your minds to stop altogether for the sake of your health.

I only smoke very rarely. However, every time you nag me to not smoke, it makes me want to smoke more.

Just keep that in mind. Good intentions don't necessarily make effective actions.