Getting Objectivism Right (2006)

[Roger Bissell]

Over on the Rebirth of Reason website, I posted some facetious but cranky threats to write a couple of new Ayn Rand books (just what we need, right?). After grousing about Rand's foul-up regarding architecture and art, I wrote:

But hey, this isn't funny! I'm serious! It's going to be in my forthcoming book, The Errors of Ayn Rand, which is coming out right after my first book, The Enemies of Ayn Rand. All I can tell you now is that both books will contain surprises galore. For instance, all the supposed "anti-Objectivists" you keep hearing about? (Of course, you know what I'm talking about. You're one of them, buddy -- and so am I, I'm sure.) Forget it, they don't even come close to qualifying as bona fide enemies of Ayn Rand. It will be like the Christian Judgment Day when all the rabid Fundamentalists find out that they aren't saved, after all. :-)

Phil Coates, bless his soul,* took me seriously enough to try to wave me off from these faux book projects. I replied:

...as for your concern about the dangers of my writing such a book as The Errors of Ayn Rand, or The Enemies of Ayn Rand, for that matter, don't worry! (Yes, Michael, the fine faux femme fatale [referring to Artemis Kerridge, the pseudonym I haven't quite stopped using yet] was yanking the crank, but more in irritation than in playfulness.)

I'm more interested, with the time I have remaining on earth, with positive accomplishments. But since I'm pretty sure you and I are not 100% in agreement about what Rand got right or what are her "basic ideas," are you really sure you want to urge me forward to such a project? I mean, I trust my "instincts" (i.e., my internalized grasp and comfort) about Objectivism, but do you? :-)

If and when I do a book about Objectivism, it will not just be an attempt to more appealingly or persuasively "chew" her frozen-in-amber-circa-1982 system. I'm more interested in truth than in justifying the canon. Any book I do will thus be for the purpose of presenting MY version of Objectivism (which, by the way, I regard as an OPEN system). I will be building on what I think is right in Rand's system, while correcting what I think is wrong. And while there is a lot more of the former (else, why would I bother!), there's also enough of the latter to warrant more than several throw-away comments or footnotes.

So, in that sense, yes, I am primarily concerned with an accurate portrayal of Objectivism -- but not without setting straight the record on the ways I think she (and others, notably, Peikoff) have botched it. For instance, when I discuss free will vs. determinism, or the mind-body problem, I will be arguing the case against the view of Rand et al in terms of the more basic ideas of hers (in metaphysics and epistemology) that I agree with. When I discuss art and architecture (as I did in my JARS essay, vol. 5, no. 2), I argued against the view of Rand et al in terms of the more basic ideas of hers (in aesthetics) that I agree with. And so on.

REB (aka AK)

P.S. -- Sorry, folks, for writing such a long, non-funny post on the Humor list, but once the dust settles after poking fun at the "metaphysically insignificant" (the vitriol sprayers and error airbrushers), the logical follow-up is with -- what else -- the metaphysically significant: getting it right!

* According to established Objectivist doctrine, the "soul" is one's mind and values. This is one aspect of Objectivism I will NOT be challenging. :-)

[Gonzalo Jerez]

Hello, Roger,

I am learning in order to be a real objectivist. I also think the best thing man has is reason, his values and mind. I have a question for you. A man who is mental ill -because of, e.g., a genetical defect- has not soul? This man has not the same Rights of an objectivist? This man needs to be killed?

Maybe the questions are so hard and radicals but... I want to know the answer.

Best regards,

Gonzalo Jerez

You wrote:

* According to established Objectivist doctrine, the "soul" is one's mind and values. This is one aspect of Objectivism I will NOT be challenging.

[Dragonfly]

Well Gonzalo, you want to know the answer, and no doubt one of the experts here can give you a good answer, but what do you think yourself?

[Gonzalo Jerez]

I think that mental ills are also men but without the capacity which we, normal people, have got.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

[Roger Bissell]

Gonzalo, I don't have all the details worked out, but I agree with you that the mentally ill are human beings. Their capacity for reason is impaired, but they still have rights.

REB

[tndbay]

any real world situation will be infinitely less abstract, too.

the context would be defined in infinite detail- the lines of responsibility distinguishable, the claims of ownership- all the details that can make it amenable to ethical analysis using the concepts of ownership and damage.

if it still appears murky, zoom in to resolve details to black and white.

then zoom out, to break goedel, and see if subsuming an issue can make things tractable.

as a general rule, it is perhaps best to grant the claim of humanity to any creature who might be able to claim it and only reject that claim when the alternative is to reject your own.

- peter

[Allexa]

I'm Allexa.... and I recently joined this Objectivist Community.... but I have a question and I don't know to what field to relate it.... the question goes like this.... I read in Atlas Shrugged.... about the wife of James Taggart and about her suicide.... do u agree with that?... don't you find it against the Objectivist principles?.... I mean.... Objectivism considers one's life as being the most important thing ... so how come Ayn Rand agreed with suicide?.... and if I am not wrong in The virtue of selfishness... there was something about this too... but related to the feeling of love... it was like this: if the person you love dyes and if you do not find any joy in your life anymore... you are free to comit suicide.... maybe I didn't get it right... or maybe it has to do with the intensity of love... and with the fact that you lose the person you need

[tndbay]

hi allexa.

if i remember correctly, mrs j taggart was a dependent lady who thought her husband was wonderful until she discovered he was a fraud?

to get to galt's gulch you had to swear you would live your life for the sake of no other man...

perhaps that was an illustration of the consequences of defining one's identity completely on the basis of somebody else?

(if i've misremembered things, plz forgive me and ignore this post!)

[CNA]

Hi, Allexa. This is my personal take on it and then I'll go get Atlas and provide you with some excerpts from Atlas hoping to explain why she committed suicide. One is fear of what she was "seeing" for the first time and it is heavy. And the other is the act of saving your own ass from being another host--she acted out of fear and self-preservation. Taggart played a small role in it. He helped push it along but it was the entirety of the marriage, his friends, his actions she was observing, the actions of others around her that she was observing. She was questioning everything in the marriage and her surroundings from beginning to the end of it. She was unable to deal with the reality that she had finally grasped and understood. If I am remembering correctly, I believe she took her life because of fear and not wanting to live in such a world as she was "seeing" it for the first time for what it truly was and was acting in her own self-interest.

I found the excerpts. If you want to read the entire exchange between Dagny and Cherryl in the book I have, it starts on page 812 in the middle of the page and goes to page 817. And then begin again on page 824 about 3/4 of the way down the page and end on page 831. I'll give a few excerpts to give you an idea of what I am talking about. Cherryl was figuring it out, slowly but surely and she finally started to "see" and understand.

Cherryl...Cherryl, you poor kid, there have been centuries of philosophers plotting to turn the world into just that -- to destroy people's minds by making them believe that that's whay they're seeing.  But you don't have to accept it.  You don't have to see through the eyes of others, hold on to yours, stand on your own judgment, you know that what is, is--say it aloud, like the holiest of prayers, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Cherryl, what you've been struggling with is the greatest problem in history, the one that has caused all of human suffering.  You've understood much more than most people, who suffer and die, never knowing what killed them.  I'll help you to understand.  It's a big subject and a hard battle -- but first, above all, don't be afraid.

These excerpts are Cherryl talking with Taggart after leaving Dagny. It has finally hit home for Cherryl and she is "seeing" it for the first time and she is downright terrified of it.

Then the headlight she had felt rushing upon her, hit its goal--and she screamed in the bright explosion of the impact--she screamed in physical terror, backing away from him.

What's the matter with you?  he cried, shaking, not daring to see in her eyes what she had seen.

She moved her hands in groping gestures, half-waving it away, half-trying to grasp it; when she answered, her words did not quite name it, but they were the only words she could find:  You....you're a killer....for the sake of killing....

She had to escape from Jim, she thought.  Where?--she asked, looking around her with a glance like a cry of prayer.  She would have seized upon a job in a five-and-ten, or in that laundry, or in any of the dismal shops she passed.  But she would work, she thought, and the harder she worked, the more malevolence she would draw from the people around her, and she would not know when truth would be expected of her and when a lie, but the stricter her honesty, the greater the fraud she would be asked to suffer at their hands.  She had seen it before and had borne it, in the home of her family, in the shops of the slums, but she had thought that these were vicious exceptions, chance evils, to escape and forget.  Now she knew that they were not exceptions, that theirs was the code accepted by the world, that it was a creed of living, known by all, but kept unnamed, leering at her from people's eyes in that sly, guilty look she had never been able to understand--and at the root of that creed, hidden by silence, lying in wait for her in the cellars of the city and in the cellars of their souls, there was a thing with which one could not live.

Why are you doing it to me?--she cried soundlessly to the darkness around her.  Because you're good--some enormous laughter seemed to be answering from the roof tops and from the sewers.  Then I won't want to be good any longer-- But you will-- I don't have to-- You will-- I can't bear it-- You will.

She plunged into the darkness behind a corner, shrinking in dread from any human figure.  No, she thought, they're not evil, not all people....they're only their own first victims, but they all believe in Jim's creed, and I can't deal with them.  Once I know it....and if I spoke to them, they would try to grant me their good will, but I'd know what it is that they hold as the good and I would see death starting out of their eyes.

No exit--her shreds of awareness were saying, beating it into the pavements in the sound of her steps--no exit...no refuge...no signals..no way to tell destruction from safety, or enemy from friend...Like that dog she had heard about, she thought....somebody's dog in somebody's laboratory...the dog who got his signals switched on him and saw no way to tell satisfaction from torture, saw food changed to beatings and beatings to food, saw his eyes and ears were decieving him and his judgment futile and his consciousness impotent in a shifting, swimming, shapeless world--and gave up, refusing to eat at that price or to live in a world of that kind....No!--was the only conscious word in her brain--no!--no!--no!--not your way, not your world--even if this no! is all that's to be left of mine!

Then she ran, ran by the sudden propulsion of a burst of power, the power of a creature running for its life, she ran straight down the street that ended at the river--and in a single streak of speed, with no break, no moment of doubt, with full consciousness of acting in self-preservation, she kept running till the parapet barred her way and, not stopping, went over into space.

Cherryl didn't kill herself because of love over Taggart. Cherryl killed herself because she finally "saw" with her own two eyes for the first time what and who she was living around and why and it scared the living hell out of her, some very heavy stuff. Her only conclusion was to kill herself in the act of saving her ass literally from those around her and that world.

Angie

[Allexa]

Thank you all for your replies.... as for the quotes... I have already read them.... I only have a few pages till I finish Atlas Shrugged.... CNA or Angie.... ( I don't know exactly your name).... you gave me a part of the answer .... may question was not why did Cherryl kill herself... it was why does Ayn Rand agree with suicide? isn't it against the Objectivist principles?.... I just think that killing yourself is not the answer.... Dagny didn't kill herself... nor did the other Objectivists... they fought.... and yeah tndbay (again I don't know your name)... I know what the condition for entering Galt's guch was.... and if you already posted the message... it can't be ignored.... I never ignore the answers that I receive for the questions I asked.... anyway... if you have some new ideas... and if you can explain to me how come Ayn Rand agrees with suicide.... pls don't hesitate do to so.... ( I should probably take a look over some chapters from The Virtue of Selfishness... and see if I can find the passage where she talks about this.... ).... bye and thank you again

[Reidy]

You seem to think that, because Rand depicts the suicide, she approves of it. This doesn't follow, any more than it follows for what the overtly evil characters do.

Cherryl is intellectually half-formed and in over her head, the victim of malice she doesn't understand. This isn't a state Rand recommends. The best evidence is her treatment of the more intellectually sophisticated characters. If she believed what you think she does, they'd be the ones killing themselves.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some posts that were recovered from a Google search cache from the July 17-27 black hole.

Michael

may question was not why did Cherryl kill herself... it was why does Ayn Rand agree with suicide? isn't it against the Objectivist principles?....

I agree with the posters who said, in effect, that Rand thought Cheryl should not have killed herself, but she sympathized with the confusion and pain that led Cheryl to do so. Cheryl was a good person, who made a tragic but understandable mistake. But there are some contexts in which Rand would have said a person was right to commit suicide and that it was consistent with Objectivist principles. Say that someone was dying, and in unbearable pain that could not be alleviated. How could one say it was wrong for the person to end his life and his agony? You see, in such a situation, his life, which for him would mean only continuing to breath -- could no longer have value; it would mean only the continuation of suffering, with no other alternative possible.

Barbara

Gonzalo, the mentally ill -- even the profoundly impaired and damaged among them -- are certainly human beings. It would be monstrous to suggest, as Hitler did and as he made a reality in killing-hospitals during his regime, that they should be killed. If one said they were not human, not deserving of life, because they could not reason (which is not true of most of those we call mentally ill but only of those who are brain-damaged), then one would have to say the same thing about babies and young children, and we would have the right to kill them because they were not able to reason.

Besides, because of the incredible progress of medical science during our lifetimes, we may yet see the day when even some or most of the brain-damaged will be healed, as ways are found to restore damaged brains.

Barbara

Hi, Allexa, you're welcome for the response. I did misunderstand your question. I don't know what AR's view of suicide is so I can't provide a quote. I'm sure others on here would be able to provide a quote for you though. You can call me Angie although I have been called Firecracker and a variety of other names....lol. You can call me Angie if you want.

I also wanted to post to point out excerpts that "I" personally cannot get passed. I honestly don't think Cherryl was confused and intellectually half formed. I'll put the sentences and words in bold and italics that stands out to me personally.

Cherryl, what you've been struggling with is the greatest problem in history, the one that has caused all of human suffering. You've understood much more than most people, who suffer and die, never knowing what killed them. I'll help you to understand. It's a big subject and a hard battle -- but first, above all, don't be afraid.

Then the headlight she had felt rushing upon her, hit its goal--and she screamed in the bright explosion of the impact--she screamed in physical terror, backing away from him.

What's the matter with you? he cried, shaking, not daring to see in her eyes what she had seen. She moved her hands in groping gestures, half-waving it away, half-trying to grasp it; when she answered, her words did not quite name it, but they were the only words she could find: You....you're a killer....for the sake of killing....

She plunged into the darkness behind a corner, shrinking in dread from any human figure. No, she thought, they're not evil, not all people....they're only their own first victims, but they all believe in Jim's creed, and I can't deal with them. Once I know it....and if I spoke to them, they would try to grant me their good will, but I'd know what it is that they hold as the good and I would see death starting out of their eyes.

To my understanding, the philosophy and Atlas talks about Pain and Destruction and that code of living. For me, the excerpts from AS of what happened to Cherryl speaks volumes and I think they stand on their own. Dagny told Cherryl that she had understood more than most people. Then the excerpt where she literally backs away from Taggart in physical terror. And the words grasp and name it, tells me she was Identifying and understanding what was happening around her. She was beginning to see and understand. For me and reading the excerpts, she saw more than what she was expecting to see to the point she stumbled back from Taggart in physical terror and then eventually shrinking in dread from people "thinking" to herself as well as "talking with herself" (that good ole inner voice) and saying to herself, no, they're not all evil, not all people......

For me personally and reading the excerpts, I think what was happening to Cherryl was obvious. At least to me it is. I don't know AR's personal view of suicide so I can't provide quotes. But I just wanted to post and point out some words that stood out to me personally.

Angie

Thank you all for your answers.... now this problem is clear to me....

I have another question though.... Do you think that a person who lives it's life according to the Objectivist principles... but who still believes that there is a God.... but that He is not controling our lives.... is still and Objectivist?

Allexa: "Do you think that a person who lives it's life according to the Objectivist principles... but who still believes that there is a God.... but that He is not controling our lives.... is still and Objectivist?"

Ayn Rand would say, no, a person who believes in God is not an Objectivist. She would say that to hold such a belief is to default on a primary principle of Objectivism: the absolutism of reason. She would say that the belief in God requires an act of faith, and that faith is the opposite of reason. She would say that the person who allows faith into his life does not and cannot practice the principles of Objectivism.

I think there are important questions to be asked of the believer in God. What do you mean by the concept "God?" What, precisely, is this being in whom you believe? What convinced you that there is such a being? What does your belief add to your life? What would change if you were to become an atheist? How can you know that He is not controlling your life? After all, if He exists then surely He is all-powerful and could control you without your ever recognizing it. How do you explain the existence of evil? Why does an all-powerful being allow babies to be bayoneted and good people to suffer and die? Why does he permit war and disease, pain and suffering, concentration camps and mass starvation, to pollute his world?

These are some of the many questions I would want the theist to answer before I could conclude that his belief in a God is authentic rather than something to which he merely pays lip service. I would want to know that he fully understands the meaning and consequences of "believing in God."

Barbara

Allexa, it sounds like you are talking about not Theism, but Deism, the belief that there is a First-Cause God, who started up the universe, with all its laws (including evolution), but who does not intervene in any way (especially a-causally via miracles).

Some people, including some of the Founding Fathers, apparently think that the universe's existence and nature does not make sense without some pre-existing Being to get it all started. But Nathaniel Branden's (and others') argument really lets the air out of this balloon, IMO. If you need something pre-existing (God) to explain something else (the universe), what exempts that (God) from needing something else to explain its (Its) existence? If God does not need an explanation, but just exists, why the need of the extra step? Why not just say that existence, the universe, needs no explanation, but just exists? You're not gaining any explanatory value by positing the extra entity (Entity). You're just complicating the universe!

This is a quick and messy statement of the argument, Allexa. If you're really concerned or interested in the matter, there are some good books to consult. Probably the best and clearest discussion of this is in George H. Smith's Atheism, the Case Against God. I highly recommend it!

REB

_________________

Objectivism, properly used, is a tool for living, not a weapon with which to bash those one disagrees with.

Barbara Branden wrote:

Gonzalo, the mentally ill -- even the profoundly impaired and damaged among them -- are certainly human beings. It would be monstrous to suggest, as Hitler did and as he made a reality in killing-hospitals during his regime, that they should be killed. If one said they were not human, not deserving of life, because they could not reason (which is not true of most of those we call mentally ill but only of those who are brain-damaged), then one would have to say the same thing about babies and young children, and we would have the right to kill them because they were not able to reason.

Besides, because of the incredible progress of medical science during our lifetimes, we may yet see the day when even some or most of the brain-damaged will be healed, as ways are found to restore damaged brains.

Barbara

Hello, Barbara,

I would say which you have said, approximately, but as I am new in Objectivism -I am comprised to Objectivism since a time, when I started to read Ayn Rand´s texts as “Fountainhead”, “Atlas Shrugged” and other texts with theorist contents and I try to explain Objectivism as well as I can do it- and I think that reason is the best value but I didn´t knew which you had said…

Besides, because of the incredible progress of medical science during our lifetimes, we may yet see the day when even some or most of the brain-damaged will be healed, as ways are found to restore damaged brains.

I don´t think that mental illness men are pitiful, I go to a pool where some of those bath. I play football with they. His problem, as you say, will be resolved. Ayn Rand, I have read, was advocated to free abort. Morally, I can´t give permission to kill someone who is in mother´s belly. It´s a being.

Best regards,

Gonzalo Jerez

P.S.: I have a resolved faith which leans in you can understand my responses. I have not a lot of time for correct my messages...

_________________

The main political problem is how to prevent the police power from becoming tyrannical. This is the meaning of all the struggles for liberty.

Ludwig von Mises