Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[Xray]

Creating a 'hero' in a novel does not mean that this character has to look like Barbie's boyfriend Ken.

You did not answer my question.

I think my answer was sufficient enough, but in case you need more specifics: I have never felt the inclination to write a novel, but if I did, I would not present any such heroes as Rand, whose naive (teenager-like imo) attitude made her endow with physical attractiveness the characters propagating her subjective values, presenting "the enemies" as physically unattractive (and they of course have silly names too, e.g. "Wesley Mouch", "Tinky Holloway" )

The main character in a work of fiction is traditionally called "hero", but in the course of literay history, authors have deliberately debunked the 'hero' myth, a development Rand seems to have slept through. Just curious: has she ever commented on contemporary literature having 'anti-heroes'?

William Thackeray called his Vanity Fair "a novel without a hero"; Flaubert thematizes the tragedy of his main character Emma Bovary, whose image of a romantic relationship was formed by popular romance novels she read as young girl.

Are you trying to say that if you wrote a novel with a hero, your hero would look like Quasimodo?

Why not? Just think of the many 'picaresque' heroes in famous works of fiction.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Excellent.

What about the case of the blind child whose skin cannot feel the heat due to a traumatic brain trauma?

In case of several senses being impaired, it becomes more difficult (in some cases impossible) to mentally integrate.

But we were talking about cases where this normally is possible.

Just like e.g. the theory as to how a living, thinking entity learns to categorize disregards severe cases of mental and sensory impairment.

For example, a lion born blind is unable to mentally abstract a gazelle from a tree and decide which entity belonging to which category is likely to yield a meal, whereas a sensorily unimpaired lion has zero problems with that.

Rand goes on and on about "concept formation", as if that were some difficult and mentally challenging feat. But this is not the case. For all brain-endowed entities form categories, many automatically without conscious thought of the process.

More here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7590&st=40 post (# 43)

Edited October 30, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

About Cheryl's disappointment re Jim:

"In place of a love made by the brilliant fire of hero worship, she was left with the gnawing drabness of pity" (AS, p. 882).

Here it is again: hero worship as a necessary basis for love according to Objectivist principles.

It looks like AR could not conceive of love not involving hero worship.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

About Cheryl's disappointment re Jim:

"In place of a love made by the brilliant fire of hero worship, she was left with the gnawing drabness of pity" (AS, p. 882).

Here it is again: hero worship as the condito sine qua non for love.

It looks like AR could not conceive of love not involving hero worship.

Ms. Xray:

In what path of reasoning do you conclude that? Can you sketch out how you get from the quote to the conclusion.

Adam

[Selene]

Excellent.

What about the case of the blind child whose skin cannot feel the heat due to a traumatic brain trauma?

In case of several senses being impaired, it becomes more difficult (in some cases impossible) to mentally integrate.

But we were talking about cases where this normally is possible.

Just like e.g. the theory as to how a living, thinking entity learns to categorize disregards severe cases of mental and sensory impairment.

For example, a lion born blind is unable to mentally abstract a gazelle from a tree and decide which entity belonging to which category is likely to yield a meal, whereas a sensorily unimpaired lion has zero problems with that.

Rand goes on and on about "concept formation", as if that were some difficult and mentally challenging feat. But this is not the case. For all brain-endowed entities form categories, many automatically without conscious thought of the process.

More here:

http://www.objectivi...opic=7590&st=40 post (# 43)

Ms. Xray:

Therefore your answer to ...

"...how does the individual human comes to know 'the difference between fact and subjective validation?'"

is... "In case of several senses being impaired, it becomes more difficult (in some cases impossible) to mentally integrate.

But we were talking about cases where this normally is possible."

Was I supposed to forget the first statement and question?

Adam

simply curious

[Donovan A.]

A friend of mine helped me find this quote which is relevant to this thread:

"As a child perhaps your vision of the heroic was first found in comic strips. In Superman or Buck Rogers or Tarzan. You saw them as strong and wise, and in the terms of childhood you saw clearly. But then you decided that such qualities are impossible to man. And so you stopped thinking about them. You did not perform the mental task of refining, clarifying, maturing your definitions of your values as you grew. You didn't perform the processes as the years past, of abstracting from your childhood heros their real essence and recasting that essence into adult form. You did not learn to understand that such men as Howard Roark and John Galt, although vastly different in details are the adult form of those childhood heros. And you might then, reading about Roark or Galt, never know that they are the essence of what you had wanted in childhood, wanted for yourself and wanted to find in others. And you might feel instead that they are impossible, unreal, unattainable."

Barbara Branden, Efficient Thinking: CD Disc 18 - Causes of Inefficient Thinking at 32:54

[Xray]

Was I supposed to forget the first statement and question?

Of course not. It is about differentiation.

[Selene]

Was I supposed to forget the first statement and question?

Of course not. It is about differentiation.

Ms. Xray:

The individual human comes to know "the difference between fact and subjective validation by the process of differentiation".

That is your final statement?

Is the following what you mean by "differentiation"?

Differentiation is a term in system theory (found in sociology.) From the viewpoint of this theory, the principal feature of modern society is the increased process of system differentiation as a way of dealing with the complexity of its environment. This is accomplished through the creation of subsystems in an effort to copy within a system the difference between it and the environment. The differentiation process is a means of increasing the complexity of a system, since each subsystem can make different connections with other subsystems. It allows for more variation within the system in order to respond to variation in the environment. Increased variation facilitated by differentiation not only allows for better responses to the environment, but also allows for faster evolution (or perhaps sociocultural evolution), which is defined sociologically as a process of selection from variation; the more differentiation (and thus variation) that is available, the better the selection (Ritzer 2007:95-96).

If not, define it please?

You may think this is frivolous if you wish. It is not.

Adam

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

The individual human comes to know "the difference between fact and subjective validation by the process of differentiation".

That is your final statement?

Hold your cerebral horses, Mr. Selene, for they it looks like they want to jump to conclusions not implied in my post.

To get your horses back on track: I mentioned "differentiation" in reply to your post where you asked me how a sensorily impaired person can acquire knowledge about facts involving sensory perception.

Is the following what you mean by "differentiation"?

Differentiation is a term in system theory (found in sociology.) From the viewpoint of this theory, the principal feature of modern society is the increased process of system differentiation as a way of dealing with the complexity of its environment. This is accomplished through the creation of subsystems in an effort to copy within a system the difference between it and the environment. The differentiation process is a means of increasing the complexity of a system, since each subsystem can make different connections with other subsystems. It allows for more variation within the system in order to respond to variation in the environment. Increased variation facilitated by differentiation not only allows for better responses to the environment, but also allows for faster evolution (or perhaps sociocultural evolution), which is defined sociologically as a process of selection from variation; the more differentiation (and thus variation) that is available, the better the selection (Ritzer 2007:95-96).

If not, define it please?

You may think this is frivolous if you wish. It is not.

It is a matter of personal validation whether one calls 'frivoulous' your listing Wikipedia entries ballooning up a discussion about a term.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

How does the individual human come to know 'the difference between fact and subjective validation?

Adam

not trying to be voluminous

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

How does the individual human come to know 'the difference between fact and subjective validation?

Adam

not trying to be voluminous

This is an essential epistemological question: how do you know what you know?

It looks Ayn Rand had difficulties here, believing that her subjective validations were "objective".

This pivotal question of yours would deserve its own thread in the Epistemology section. You have been around here at OL far longer than I: do you (or others) know if there exists a thread where this has been discussed, and if yes, could give a link?

Edited October 31, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

How does the individual human come to know 'the difference between fact and subjective validation?

Adam

not trying to be voluminous

This is an essential epistemological question: how do you know what you know?

It looks Ayn Rand had difficulties here, believing that her subjective validations were "objective".

This pivotal question of yours would deserve its own thread in the Epistemology section. You have been around here at OL far longer than I: do you (or others) know if there exists a thread where this has been discussed, and if yes, could give a link?

Ms. Xray:

You are not going to provide your answer?

Adam

abridged answer to keep thread un-bloated

[Philip Coates]

Put a cork in it, you two.

[Xray]

A friend of mine helped me find this quote which is relevant to this thread:

"As a child perhaps your vision of the heroic was first found in comic strips. In Superman or Buck Rogers or Tarzan. You saw them as strong and wise, and in the terms of childhood you saw clearly. But then you decided that such qualities are impossible to man. And so you stopped thinking about them. You did not perform the mental task of refining, clarifying, maturing your definitions of your values as you grew. You didn't perform the processes as the years past, of abstracting from your childhood heros their real essence and recasting that essence into adult form. And you might then, reading about Roark or Galt, never know that they are the essence of what you had wanted in childhood, wanted for yourself and wanted to find in others. And you might feel instead that they are impossible, unreal, unattainable."

Barbara Branden, Efficient Thinking: CD Disc 18 - Causes of Inefficient Thinking at 32:54

You did not learn to understand that such men as Howard Roark and John Galt, although vastly different in details are the adult form of those childhood heros.

They were the adult version of Ayn Rand's childhood heros. Imo one could say that in a way, she never got over that childhood/teenage stage of hero worship, trying in her adult life to make reality fit her fantasy.

But life has its way of putting illusions to the litmus test:

"I think I represent the proper integration of a complete human being," Rand wrote while composing her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged. After the book’s publication, however, she fell into a deep depression and chided herself for not being more like her ideal man. "John Galt wouldn’t feel this," she wrote. "He would know how to handle this. I don’t know." (end quote)

http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/60120/index1.html

Edited October 31, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Put a cork in it, you two.

Phil:

I believe it is against the sexual purity law in Germany to do that unless in the Missionary Position which I imagine has some religious meaning.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Well then put a sock in it, or else I'm gonna have to sock some one.

[Selene]

Well then put a sock in it, or else I'm gonna have to sock some one.

Need an address? Brant has Ms. Xray's address.

Adam

[Xray]

quoting Xray:

"This is an essential epistemological question: how do you know what you know?

It looks [like] Ayn Rand had difficulties here, believing that her subjective validations were "objective".

This pivotal question of yours would deserve its own thread in the Epistemology section. You have been around here at OL far longer than I: do you (or others) know if there exists a thread where this has been discussed, and if yes, could give a link?" (end quote)

Ms. Xray:

You are not going to provide your answer?

Adam

abridged answer to keep thread un-bloated

Not here (don't want to run off topic) - I'll look for a suitable thread in the epistemology section where we can discuss it.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Put a cork in it, you two.

Phil:

I believe it is against the sexual purity law in Germany to do that unless in the Missionary Position which I imagine has some religious meaning.

Adam

Phil: Well then put a sock in it, or else I'm gonna have to sock some one.

Now here we have 'two veritable gentlemen in philosophical dialogue' ...!

This exchange between Phil and Selene illustrate once more how fast the thin veneer of civilization can come off.

Threats of initiation of force, bawdy slurs - and all that on a Randian hero thread - tsk, tsk.

Selene: Need an address? Brant has Ms. Xray's address.

In case readers not familiar enough with your usual slurs against me may misunderstand your post:

I have never given my address to Brant, nor to anyone else here at OL.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

You are not going to provide your answer?

Adam

Unlike Ms. Xray not ballooning up this thread - ahh pots and kettles and the color of black

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

You are not going to provide your answer?

You will get an answer, rest assured. At Epistemology.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

You are not going to provide your answer?

You will get an answer, rest assured. At Epistemology.

Ms. Xray:

Did I see a philosophical dueling gauntlet dropped at my feet!

Been a while, but the protocols mean that I have a choice of the weapons.

Now here I thought you were cold and callous, but you are really quite emotional! [reference Lee Marvin - The Dirty Dozen.

I will declare the weapons on Tuesday. Who will be your second?

See you on the field.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> This exchange between Phil and Selene illustrate once more how fast the thin veneer of civilization can come off. Threats of initiation of force, bawdy slurs - and all that on a Randian hero thread - tsk, tsk.

Xray, we're just joking. You didn't pick that up? - tsk, tsk.

I guess the nuances of the English language are just as hard for you in ordinary conversation as in reading Ayn Rand? Heh, heh. .. . .

( BTW on a more serious note, have you scanned any German translations of Rand...and are they good translations or bad? ...I would like to ask DF the same question about Dutch translations if he's scanning this thread...)

[Dragonfly]

( BTW on a more serious note, have you scanned any German translations of Rand...and are they good translations or bad? ...I would like to ask DF the same question about Dutch translations if he's scanning this thread...)

I've seen a few pages of the Dutch translation of The Fountainhead. It didn't seem to me a good translation, already in the fourth sentence the translator makes a serious error: the "frozen explosion" is translated as "droge knal" ("dry bang"), meaning that the translator thinks there is a real explosion at that moment! Curiously enough that translator (Jan van Rheenen) had a rather dubious past to put it mildly. During the 2nd world war he was a member of the SS and worked for a Nazi publishing company. After the war he became an expert on dogs and wrote a well-known dog encyclopedia, for which an uncle of mine made the illustrations (in later editions replaced by photos).

There seem to exist two Dutch translations of Atlas Shrugged, the first one ("Wereldschok") only available in second-hand bookshops. I found a page of the second translation ("Atlas in staking") on a libertarian site. It was not a good translation, typically the work of an amateur (it was in fact done by an enthusiastic amateur who was frustrated that there was no (longer) a Dutch translation available). His translation is stiff and follows much too literally the original text, which results in awkward sentences in Dutch (it sounds sometimes like an old translation of the Bible!).

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Did I see a philosophical dueling gauntlet dropped at my feet!

Been a while, but the protocols mean that I have a choice of the weapons.

Now here I thought you were cold and callous, but you are really quite emotional! [reference Lee Marvin - The Dirty Dozen.

I will declare the weapons on Tuesday. Who will be your second?

See you on the field.

Adam

I see you have switched roles again, Mr. Selene. Now it is the dueling hero, lol.

One has to give you that: you are entertaining in a way. Every forum seems to have posters enjoying the role of jester. ;)

But Selene, sorry to spoil the fun for you here: we are not going to duel at the Epistemology field.

Instead we are going to work there, digging for the treasure of truth about this issue. What you perceived as a 'gauntlet' was a shovel. You'll need it.

But if you absolutely want some competition, okay then, we can bet on who is going to find out the truth faster. Agree?

So I'm off to "check (the) premises" pun intended: a suitable field at Epistemology where we can discuss it.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Xray