Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!ima!haddock!eli
From: eli@haddock.UUCP (Elias Israel)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Objectivism
Message-ID: <504@haddock.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-May-87 16:46:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.504
Posted: Sat May 23 16:46:24 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 24-May-87 01:44:28 EDT
References: <318@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> <6033@diamond.BBN.COM> <1045@chinet.UUCP>
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston, MA
Lines: 84
Summary: If your philosophy is sound, why head for the hills?

In article <1045@chinet.UUCP>, rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
> In article <6033@diamond.BBN.COM> aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM (Anders Weinstein) writes:
> >>  I have been reading some of Ayn Rand's writings lately...
> >
> >AAAARRRRRRRRRRGH! There's no escape! Head for the hills!
> >
> >A former reader of talk.philosophy.misc.,
> >Anders Weinstein
> 
> Why is it that just mentioning the name of Ayn Rand causes such hostile
> reactions?  This person wasn't even spouting Rand doctrine as gospel, as
> I have seen many times (and that can be annoying).  He was asking for
> information.  He, much like me, has apparently read some works by Rand,
> thought they were interesting, and had some questions.  If I remember his
> exact words (omitted by the author here) he said that he didn't agree
> fully with Rand, but she seemed to make some sense, yet mainstream
> philosophy ignores her.  More than that, it seems, they scowl at her and
> her followers with remarks like this every chance they get.

I have to agree and repeat the question: If you have a better idea, say
so and prove it. I, too, have some problems with Objectivism, but
I think that the epistomology upon which it is based is sound. Ayn failed
to finish the work that she started largely because, like most of us, she
had some  failings and insecurities. She did not understand the joy
of doing something *just because it feels good*, even though she would do so
often with her "tiddly-wink music" which she loved for no _intelectuall_
reason. She did not understand someone who could make light of themselves
because she thought that showed a lack of purpose (a cardinal sin for
an objectivist). If you'll pardon the language, my SO has said that the
problem with Objectivists is that they Make Love, but they never *fuck*.

She loved her friends intensely, but always kept them "on trial". One
slip up, perhaps even admitting that the sight of mountains seemed
more beautiful than majestic skyscrapers, was "proof" to Ayn that
someone was, deep inside, anti-intellectual, an enemy. She obviously
could not see, even in herself where it was manifested most strongly,
the human need for companions with whom one feels _accepted_, people
with whom one feels to belong.

Still, with all of the problems, I think that Ayn had pinpointed the
intellectual reasons for the battle between Communism and Capitalism.
She gave moral sanction to a section of the workforce that has traditionally
been regarded as leeches and vampires, showing indeed that EVERYONE has
a contribution to make and no one should be prevented from enjoying the
fruits of their labors (manual or intelectual).

> I'm not speaking as an Objectivist or anything, since I'm not one.  But

Nor am I (at least, I doubt that Leonard Peikoff would call me one. Perhaps
Barbara Brandon would).  Reading "The Passion of Ayn Rand" saddened me.
It is ironic, I think, that Rand could have learned an important
lesson from one of her own characters. In her book _Atlas Shrugged_,
the one character that learns something new and deals with the
knowledge by adapting his behaviour and feeling comfortable with the
change is Hank Reardon.  Reardon knew what Rand did not. Philosophies
of life do not spring fresh and complete from one's head like Athena
from the head of Zeus, but are learned from the passing of time and
experience. Illogical or irrational actions are not proof of someone's
villainy any more than rational ones are proof of heroism.

For these reasons, I cannot accept that Objectivism (as it now stands)
is a complete philosophy. Nevertheless, large portions of it remain
as the cornerstone of my philosophy.

> you have to admit, it makes you wonder why the philosophers and many others
> shout down Rand and Objectivism so loudly.  Perhaps it's because she does
> have it all absolutely right, and recognizing this would put the philosophers
> out of a job. ;-)  I don't really believe that, of course.  From what I've
> read of Rand, she has some excellent ideas about the nature of philosophy,
> knowledge, and ethics that she doesn't actually put in practice as objectively
> as she thinks she does.  But it's still interesting to see so many people
> so anxious to mock this set of ideas.  When that many people mock something
> that ferociously without bothering to acknowledge it seriously, I tend to
> think that maybe it's something worth looking at.
> 								-- Rhonda


Yes, sometimes the supposed opinion of "the masses" is a good guage
for what one should strive to avoid opining.


Elias Israel
Boston, MA
ima!haddock!eli