Settling the debate on Altruism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane,

All writing comes with a context.

I have paid my dues to be able to say what I say about Rand's oversimplifications. I paid for this with the suffering I mentioned, so I know first hand the traps I speak of. I am certain my observations help others avoid wasting the amount of time and effort I expended fighting with ghosts and guilt feelings from swallowing both cognitive and normative ideas whole and not fully digesting them. And I am talking about decades, not just years.

As to fixing Objectivism, I'm not even remotely interested. I am interested in ideas for my own life and discussing them with like-minded people. Nothing further.

Rand was a seminal influence on my thinking, but I am not a disciple of Rand. I once was. I hurt myself doing that, too, precisely because I am one to implement what I learn. Objectivism is a body of ideas and nothing more. If you make it more, you do it wrong—and that's what I did in the past.

Nowadays, I am a disciple of me.

On the flip side, I did post this comment on a board Kat and I own called "Objectivist Living" and part of the subtitle is "Dedicated to Ayn Rand."

There's a hell of a lot of good said about her here. I wouldn't do all this if I did not find great value in her ideas. I am an accomplished musician and translator, so it would have been just as easy to set up a discussion board on these topics I studied in depth. But I chose Objectivism.

There's also plenty one can learn here on OL if that is one's purpose.

But, more than Ayn Rand, this is a board devoted to people thinking for themselves. That's the real issue. This is not a board devoted to Rand adoration. (I'm not saying you do this, but there are plenty of people who do, and this comes first in their minds.) I have no intention of not speaking my mind just because some of what I speak criticizes Rand's oversimplifications when she made them, or I identify psychological traps in Objectivism I have lived through or observed in others.

In my conception, the highest respect I can pay Ayn Rand is to hold her ideas and writing to the test of verification and truth through my own independent thinking. I highly encourage everyone to do the same.

Anything less is—in reality—not taking her ideas seriously qua ideas, but instead taking what someone else thinks of her ideas (and all the rest) as a standard. That includes Rand's own opinion of her work, since she often quoted her own writing to make a point in the manner religious people quote holy books.

That's no longer my path.

Michael

[Selene]

Damn Michael:

Where is that standing applause emoticon??

Perfect. It is no surprise that this is the only place on the internet that I "belong" to.

In an exceptional way, it is unfettered. A recent example was the "hello" thread.

Additionally, for me, the ease of use level is perfect.

Thanks to both of you for building this intellectual Yankee Stadium in Iowa lol.

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

Michael,

I wholeheartedly agree you have paid the dues to write what you think in regard to Ayn. But the way you do it does not persecute her...completely the opposite if you ask me. It's one of the attributes of this site that keeps me here, and here alone. That was the main drive of my statement, or at least my attempt. I merely pointed to your reference because it had the word oversimplification in it, not you being the source of my observation ;)

One way to put it is if you take issue with someone that you respect, you would say "with all due respect...[comment]". Some don't do that. Without a doubt in my mind, you say and show "with all due respect" to Ayn with your words and hosting this site.

I hope you didn't take my comment as being aimed towards you, because my bow was pointed 180 degrees in the other direction.

~ Shane

[Xray]

It's fair to consider Xray to be a highly intelligent troll. She goes here and there doing the troll thing, if I've read one of her posts right. Okay by me. I've yet to get back to her on the selfless/selfish thing, which I'll do when I find the time. Her saving grace is not her brains but that she's done a lot of work to get up to speed.

--Brant

I'm not a troll. I have seen many trolls come and go on forums and you can easliy recognize them by their (often deliberately asinine) 'hit and run' posts competely disconnected with the topic discussed. You will never get a troll into a discussion because they have zero interest in it.

Every time you suspect someone is a troll, just do the litmus by trying to get them into a discussion and you will see the fraud exposed instantly.

In terms of Rand's position, I'm especially interested in discussing the "value" and "selfishness vs. altruism" topic, and wrote on another thread that I invite everyone who thinks that objective values exist to a debate.

The same goes for everyone who thinks altruism exists. My challenge is that any so called "altruistic" action can be traced back to a self-interest motive at the root of it.

She goes here and there doing the troll thing, if I've read one of her posts right.

You have misread it.

I wrote that I have been in many forum discussions and debates [about thought systems], the gamut ranging from religious fundamentalists to fervent Marxists. Both groups have more in common than one would think when it comes to the rigid defense of their belief.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

the meaning of being an objectivist Randian woman?

... acting as a "priestess" (Rand called Dominique Francon that) for the man she chose as her "hero"?

[Xray]

[Selene]:

Did I read in one of your posts that you are an "educator" and live in Germany and you have birthed no children? or am I confusing you with another contributor?

I'm from Germany and work as a teacher. I have a daughter - so you may in part be confusing me with another poster.

I'd say "truth," but wonder.

This is what I'm seeking: truth.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

It's fair to consider Xray to be a highly intelligent troll. She goes here and there doing the troll thing, if I've read one of her posts right. Okay by me. I've yet to get back to her on the selfless/selfish thing, which I'll do when I find the time. Her saving grace is not her brains but that she's done a lot of work to get up to speed.

--Brant

I'm not a troll. I have seen many trolls come and go on forums and you can easliy recognize them by their (often deliberately asinine) 'hit and run' posts competely disconnected with the topic discussed. You will never get a troll into a discussion because they have zero interest in it.

Every time you suspect someone is a troll, just do the litmus by trying to get them into a discussion and you will see the fraud exposed instantly.

In terms of for Rand's position, I'm especially interested in discussing the "value" and "selfishness vs altruism" topic, and wrote on another thread that I invite everyone who thinks that objective values exist to a debate.

She goes here and there doing the troll thing, if I've read one of her posts right.

You have misread it.

I wrote that I have been in many forum discussions and debates [about thought systems], the gamut ranging from religious fundamentalists to fervent Marxists. Both groups have more in common than one would think when it comes to the rigid defense of their belief.

I'm very willing to take your word and explanation for it. Sounds good.

--Brant

[Xray]

Do you have an explanation why Rand would consider her husband Frank O'Connor as a "hero"?

I have one...she married him. I don't think she would have married if she thought otherwise.

~ Shane

What do you think qualified Frank O'Connor as a hero in her eyes?

Edited April 23, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

Do you have an explanation why Rand would consider her husband Frank O'Connor as a "hero"?

I have one...she married him. I don't think she would have married if she thought otherwise.

~ Shane

What do you think qualified Frank O'Connor as a hero in her eyes?

Well, if you read Judgment Day by NB, he suggests that Frank may have represented an archetype to Rand of her heroes (perhaps based on traits of appearance, behavior, etc.). It's not necessarily logical; archetypes are feeling based and rest upon unconscious associations.

[Xray]

Well, if you read Judgment Day by NB, he suggests that Frank may have represented an archetype to Rand of her heroes (perhaps based on traits of appearance, behavior, etc.). It's not necessarily logical; archetypes are feeling based and rest upon unconscious associations.

I haven't read Judgment Day, only Barbara Branden's Rand biography. It looks like Nathaniel B. was also the object of AR's projection. When she laid eyes on him as he and Barbara stood there in the hall of Rand's home meeting her for the first time, she thought of how "heroic" he looked; to Rand, NB physically represented in perfection the picture she had in her mind of a hero.

Imo the real prototype of a hero in Ayn's mind (I personally would not use the Jungian term archetype here), was someone else: Cyrus, the fictional hero of a fantasy story young Ayn (Alice) (when she was still a child IIRC), had fallen in love with. Fearless, brave Cyrus.

In today's time, Cyrus would probably be some kind of comic strip superhero figure.

Imo AR never got over this intial infatuation with a fantasy figure, and the longing for such a hero shaped her relationship with men all her life. I think she more or less tried to fit the men in her life into that mold. But (not surprising), the result was in no way as desired.

Attempting to measure up to Rand's childlike (imo) mental creations HAD to end in a disaster. For the self-conflict of trying to become something one can never become is one of the most tortuous. Trying to change one's nature is the denial of real subjective value in pursuit of illusory objective values prompted by an equally illusory "ought." Imo it resembles the very common contradiction found in all religions: Denial of self for the sake of self. jmpo

Edited April 23, 2009 by Xray

[sbeaulieu]

Do you have an explanation why Rand would consider her husband Frank O'Connor as a "hero"?

I have one...she married him. I don't think she would have married if she thought otherwise.

~ Shane

What do you think qualified Frank O'Connor as a hero in her eyes?

Frank O'Connor - Wikipedia

I can find several passages on that page that would answer the question for me, personally. There's a quote from Ayn Rand in 1949 (some 20 years of being married to Frank)

"All my heroes will always be reflections of Frank..."

That tells me that Frank was the hero, not the comparison; the standard, not the exception.

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's a passage in one of NB's books (JD or MYWAR, I can't remember which) where he mentioned that in an intimate moment with Rand, he asked her why the basic situation in her main fiction was one woman and several men instead of the other way around. He wrote she replied that these were her fantasies, not his.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

He wrote she replied that these were her fantasies, not his.

That's funny!

~ Shane

Edited April 23, 2009 by sbeaulieu

[Xray]

Frank O'Connor - Wikipedia

I can find several passages on that page that would answer the question for me, personally. There's a quote from Ayn Rand in 1949 (some 20 years of being married to Frank)

"All my heroes will always be reflections of Frank..."

That tells me that Frank was the hero, not the comparison; the standard, not the exception.

~ Shane

Could it be that Rand gave Frank hero status to justify him as her husband?

For when you you compare the heros in her book to Frank, they differ completely imo.

They are unempathetic (Roark is even a rapist!), cold, unfeeling, contemptuous (they mostly run around with a "mocking, derisive smile" on their faces), are often geniuses who excel at everything, etc.

In short, they are everything Frank was not. He was a gentle, affable man with an artistic talent, but also conflict-shy and suffering from low self-esteem.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray

"Roark is even a rapist!" Ummm...no he is not. In certain D/s communities there exist folks who consensually consent to a "rape scene". It has rules and involves complete trust.

:poke:

Adam

Edited April 23, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

xray

"Roark is even a rapist!" Ummm...no he is not. In certain D/s communities there exist folks who consensually consent to a "rape scene". It has rules and involves complete trust.

:poke:

Adam

But the scene in the Fountainhead was no prearranged kinky sex game.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

Can we discuss the difference between reality and a novel?

Adam

[Xray]

xray:

Can we discuss the difference between reality and a novel?

Adam

It was you who brought the (real-life) "communities" into the discussion.

Let's stick with the novel - I'm all for it.

So if you don't think it was a rape scene, what was it then in your opinion? What purpose did it serve?

[sbeaulieu]

Frank O'Connor - Wikipedia

I can find several passages on that page that would answer the question for me, personally. There's a quote from Ayn Rand in 1949 (some 20 years of being married to Frank)

"All my heroes will always be reflections of Frank..."

That tells me that Frank was the hero, not the comparison; the standard, not the exception.

~ Shane

Could it be that Rand gave Frank hero status to justify him as her husband?

For when you you compare the heros in her book to Frank, they differ completely imo.

They are unempathetic (Roark is even a rapist!), cold, unfeeling, contemptuous (they mostly run around with a "mocking, derisive smile" on their faces), are often geniuses who excel at everything, etc.

In short, they are everything Frank was not. He was a gentle, affable man with an artistic talent, but also conflict-shy and suffering from low self-esteem.

Xray,

To give you an honest answer on that, I'd have to read Fountainhead in it's entirety. I've only read excerpts from one of the books (can't remember which offhand...but it was a chapter that used parts of Fountainhead to explain issues such as ethics, iirc.) I did read the rape scene years ago, but it didn't come across as brutal or life-destroying, or even exertion of power. It came across as him taking what he wanted through desire and lust. Again without reading it in its entirety, I don't want to misconstrue the message Ayn was giving.

As for Roark (and other heroes), I would say that Frank was their essence, not a carbon copy...otherwise it'd be Frank O'Connor, not Roark, Galt, etc. But I certainly can't explain away the lack of empathy that might come across in her characters, in your view.

~ Shane

[Selene]

xray:

Are you not aware that you conflate issues when you change gears like you just did?

"Roark is even a rapist!"

"Let's stick with the novel - I'm all for it.

So if you don't think it was a rape scene, what was it then in your opinion? What purpose did it serve?"

The purpose that it served was the willing submission of Dominique or Dagny [see Taggart Terminal - "stalking and rape scene"].

I can only share with you what particular submissives have revealed to me. Dagny the powerful, competent, mini-CEO of Taggart Transcontinental willingly being "taken" "raped" by Galt in the tunnel. Or the powerful, competent and proud Dominique being "taken" "raped" by Roark in her bedroom.

This is quite typical of female CEO's who are submissives in the bedroom. Now, I also know female Dominatrices (sp?) who "humiliate" high powered men.

See Richard Morris otherwise known as Dick Morris being led around by a dog collar and leash by a Domme.

Apparently, the concept of a acting out a fantasy with someone you completely trust is possibly something that you do not wish to create for yourself. but as Sherry so aptly noted, if you don't know if there was an orgasm, "...you are sleeping with the wrong people.", or words to that effect.

Am I being clear or helpful to you with this post?

Adam

[Xray]

Frank O'Connor - Wikipedia

I can find several passages on that page that would answer the question for me, personally. There's a quote from Ayn Rand in 1949 (some 20 years of being married to Frank)

"All my heroes will always be reflections of Frank..."

That tells me that Frank was the hero, not the comparison; the standard, not the exception.

~ Shane

Could it be that Rand gave Frank hero status to justify him as her husband?

For when you you compare the heros in her book to Frank, they differ completely imo.

They are unempathetic (Roark is even a rapist!), cold, unfeeling, contemptuous (they mostly run around with a "mocking, derisive smile" on their faces), are often geniuses who excel at everything, etc.

In short, they are everything Frank was not. He was a gentle, affable man with an artistic talent, but also conflict-shy and suffering from low self-esteem.

Xray,

To give you an honest answer on that, I'd have to read Fountainhead in it's entirety. I've only read excerpts from one of the books (can't remember which offhand...but it was a chapter that used parts of Fountainhead to explain issues such as ethics, iirc.) I did read the rape scene years ago, but it didn't come across as brutal or life-destroying, or even exertion of power. It came across as him taking what he wanted through desire and lust. Again without reading it in its entirety, I don't want to misconstrue the message Ayn was giving.

As for Roark (and other heroes), I would say that Frank was their essence, not a carbon copy...otherwise it'd be Frank O'Connor, not Roark, Galt, etc. But I certainly can't explain away the lack of empathy that might come across in her characters, in your view.

~ Shane

But Frank was the exact opposite of the Randian heros. It was Ayn who was the queen of the castle in that marriage.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

xray:

The purpose that it served was the willing submission of Dominique or Dagny [see Taggart Terminal - "stalking and rape scene".

I can only share with you what particular submissives have revealed to me. Dagny the powerful, competent, mini-CEO of Taggart Transcontinental willingly being "taken" "raped" by Galt in the tunnel. Or the powerful, competent and proud Dominique being "taken" "raped" by Roark in her bedroom.

This is quite typical of female CEO's who are submissives in the bedroom. Now, I also know female Dominatrices (sp?) who "humiliate" high powered men.

See Richard Morris otherwise known as Dick Morris being led around by a dog collar and leash by a Domme.

The heroines Dominique and Dagny clearly show characteristics of sexual sadomasochism, no question. There are many scenes in both novels where this sticks out a mile. And the heros have a sexually sadistic streak.

Keep in mind that Rand's agenda as a writer was to present her heros as role models to emulate by her followers. And those heros/heroines have been uncritically accepted by the Randists?

Edited April 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Frank O'Connor - Wikipedia

I can find several passages on that page that would answer the question for me, personally. There's a quote from Ayn Rand in 1949 (some 20 years of being married to Frank)

"All my heroes will always be reflections of Frank..."

That tells me that Frank was the hero, not the comparison; the standard, not the exception.

~ Shane

Could it be that Rand gave Frank hero status to justify him as her husband?

For when you you compare the heros in her book to Frank, they differ completely imo.

They are unempathetic (Roark is even a rapist!), cold, unfeeling, contemptuous (they mostly run around with a "mocking, derisive smile" on their faces), are often geniuses who excel at everything, etc.

In short, they are everything Frank was not. He was a gentle, affable man with an artistic talent, but also conflict-shy and suffering from low self-esteem.

Xray,

To give you an honest answer on that, I'd have to read Fountainhead in it's entirety. I've only read excerpts from one of the books (can't remember which offhand...but it was a chapter that used parts of Fountainhead to explain issues such as ethics, iirc.) I did read the rape scene years ago, but it didn't come across as brutal or life-destroying, or even exertion of power. It came across as him taking what he wanted through desire and lust. Again without reading it in its entirety, I don't want to misconstrue the message Ayn was giving.

As for Roark (and other heroes), I would say that Frank was their essence, not a carbon copy...otherwise it'd be Frank O'Connor, not Roark, Galt, etc. But I certainly can't explain away the lack of empathy that might come across in her characters, in your view.

~ Shane

But Frank was the exact opposite of the Randian heros. It was Ayn who was the queen of the castle in that marriage.

Excuse me, and I may be rude saying this, but how the hell would you have any clue as to what their marriage was all about - I hear that yours was a circus! I mean do I have the right to even state that?

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

Xray,

You'd really have to ask Ayn that, or those who knew her personally. I'm not about to contest what she stated about Frank. It's in black and white and I would have to take her at her word for it.

~ Shane

[Xray]

Excuse me, and I may be rude saying this, but how the hell would you have any clue as to what their marriage was all about

Have you read Barbara Branden's biography on Rand? It looks like she got to know Ayn's marriage very, very well.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Xray