# SPLIT: Ayn Rand... Was Unreality Based Self Defense



## Phil Elmore (Sep 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> But Ayn Rand is a big fat doodyhead.



Ayn Rand was an extremely intelligent woman and (arguably) a talented writer, though she reinvented many wheels because she was not very well-read in her chosen field.



> Her kind of arrogant selfishness...



The arrogance is debatable and immaterial;  the validity of a philosophy is not determined by the attitude of the philosopher.  As for selfishness, there's a difference between "arrogant selfishness" and the rational self-interest Rand advocated.



> ...her "objectivist," philosophy all predicated upon utter nonnses...



Objectivists are Aristotleans, of a sort;  I do not believe anyone would say Aristotle's philosophy was built on "utter nonnses [sic]."  The philosophy is quite logically derived, and while you could argue the manner in which this is done, calling Rand a "doodyhead" is hardly a substantive refutation.  



> ...and sheer arrorange...



"Arrorange?"



> ...(not to mention racism)



On what grounds do you allege that she was a racist?  And what bearing does that have on the validity of a philosophy that argues vehemently for treating all people as individuals rather than as racial categories?  If you're going to throw out accusations like this, at least support them.

You do realize that a single quote from Ayn Rand is not the focus of the article, right?



> It might be argued that self-defense once they're anywhere near you is way too late. For example--we know that poverty "causes," criminal behavior ("causes," is of course inaccurate--it's not direct, billiard-ball causality by any means) and violence



Actually, poverty is a side-effect of any culture that glorifies crime and violence.



> so a martial artist who was really on the ball might advocate decent schools, jobs, communities precisely as a "first line of defense," against being attacked...it's "situational awareness," on a social/cultural level.



It's ridiculous, is what it is.  No matter how earnest your intentions, you cannot control the individuals who enter and leave the sphere of your existence, beacause you can only control your own actions.  You can strive to create as affluent a society as you possibly can, traveling only in daylight and by private car to only the nicest of neighborhoods, and you will still eventually encounter someone intent on doing you harm.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 18, 2003)

in point of fact, Ayn Rand was a big fat doodyhead. Why? Well, because her most famous books feature Heroic Men Who Are Superior To The Little People, and oddly enough, these Heroic Men tend to be--well--Aryan. And guess whatb the Little People tend to be? Then there's the charming treatment of women in "Fountainhead," and hey guess what? Women who say no, no no, really mean yesyesyes, and apparently smart and independent women like nothing better than to be smacked around, semi-raped, and wake up with a busted lip on a cold bathroom floor. (No, I'm not exaggerating. Re-read the book) Then there's John Galt's unreadable policy statements...Logically derived? Not bloody likely. 

Your description of the society "we liberals," I guess, would build, is in fact the way this society presently runs. And you've got hold of the wrong end of the handle with regard to the causes of violence--or, you've got the "answer," chicken," to my, "egg," and there is no "objectivist," way to choose which came first--just a politicized reason.

I sure don't see why it's irrational to understand your society, notice what's going on in the world around you, and push for social justice, as a way of self-defense. Look at the logic of putting your hands up, and "action beats reaction"--well, same logic, different arena. If you don't want to do that, OK fine. But that's a political choice, not a pragmatic one. Pragmatics takes a deep breath, says, well, this sucks and I don't morally approve, but fact is, the more jobs/education, the better living conditions, the less crime. Would there still be crappy behavior"? Sure, just less of it.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 18, 2003)

I am just an observer to the rest of the arguement; but in terms of Ayn Rand, I have to go with "big fat doddy head" on this one.

:rofl: 

Although, the subject of Ayn Rand has little to do w/ the article!


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> in point of fact, Ayn Rand was a big fat doodyhead.



Wow.  Now _that's_ a substantive rebuttal.



> Why? Well, because her most famous books feature Heroic Men Who Are Superior To The Little People, and oddly enough, these Heroic Men tend to be--well--Aryan.



Ayn Rand was a white woman.  She naturally wrote about white characters for the same reason my own novel features as its protagonist a white man rather than an African-American lesbian with a hook for a hand -- because you write about what you _know_.  She was, admittedly, something of a "male chauvinist" in her own words.  She was also of _Jewish_ descent and _Atlas Shrugged_ (it is alleged) is full of Judaic symbolism.

She wrote in what could be considered the Romantic style.  As a result, her characters represented Ideal Men and were, therefore, superior to _everyone_.  This is not "racism."  This is the concept of striving to be the best you can be, striving for absolutely consistent devotion to principle, writ large.  You can argue about the literary merits of writing in such a style, but it isn't "racist" -- and calling it that is simply an easy and intellectually bankrupt way to dismiss something you don't like.



> And guess whatb the Little People tend to be?



The overwhelming majority of the characters in Rand's novels are white.  Have you even read them?



> Then there's the charming treatment of women in "Fountainhead," and hey guess what? Women who say no, no no, really mean yesyesyes, and apparently smart and independent women like nothing better than to be smacked around, semi-raped, and wake up with a busted lip on a cold bathroom floor. (No, I'm not exaggerating. Re-read the book)



No one has denied that Rand was positively twisted when it came to sex.  Her personal life was similarly bizarre;  she had an affair with her favorite student and both of them somehow convinced their spouses to be okay with the whole thing.  When that student (Self Esteem Guru Nathaniel Branden) took up with a different, younger woman, Rand excommunicated him from the Objectivist movement.  None of that is _racist_.  If you want to complain that Rand was a misogynist, no one's going to argue with you, but you'll have to keep in mind that she _was_ a woman.

There's plenty of dirt and plenty of room to criticize Rand and those who followed her during her life -- but if you're going to do it with any credibility, you owe it to yourself to do more than call names and make groundless accusations for their hot-button merit.  Jeff Walker's _The Ayn Rand Cult_, of which I did a professional review (linked here), is fundamentally flawed for the same reason.  In stead of focusing objectively (pardon the pun) on the real grounds for which one might criticize Rand and her philosophy, he instead contented himself with making wild accusations, personal insults, and insinuations about which he could not possibly have even secondhand knowledge.

I strongly recommend, if you wish really to _educate_ yourself on the real flaws in Objectivism, that you start with The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, an unflinching look on the part of philosophers (who are not Objectivists) into Objectivism.  Further information can be found in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, published twice a year.



> Then there's John Galt's unreadable policy statements...Logically derived? Not bloody likely.



Is that your idea of a substantive refutation, then?  "Not bloodly likely?"

An individual reader's inability to comprehend _Atlas Shrugged_'s verbose climactic monologue does not invalidate the philosophy.  Rand and several of her more prominent devotees have published a tremendous body of nonfiction work on the topic.  You might find Peikoff's _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ the best starting point, though I imagine you'd have trouble getting through it -- it is very dry and even bored _me_ a little bit.  It is not the final authority on the philosophy (regardless of what Peikoff might say to the contrary;  I don't know if he thinks so or not), but it is a good centralized reference.



> Your description of the society "we liberals," I guess, would build, is in fact the way this society presently runs.



Have I called you a "liberal?"  You seem to be taking a single quote that was not the focus of the article and blowing it out of all proportion, becoming personally offended because you do not like a philosophy of which you have (apparently) only a superficial knowledge.

What about the way society runs now makes it preferable to the way it might run differently?  What has that got to do with anything?



> And you've got hold of the wrong end of the handle with regard to the causes of violence--or, you've got the "answer," chicken," to my, "egg," and there is no "objectivist," way to choose which came first--just a politicized reason.



Actually, the _root_ cause of violence is _individual will_.  Blaming any external factor because _you_ chose to stick a screwdriver in someone's eye to take their wallet is simply a convenient excuse.  Individual responsibility for individual action begins and ends with the individual.

But then, if you're an "external locus of control" kind of guy, you won't agree.



> I sure don't see why it's irrational to understand your society



Understanding and agreeing are not synonymous.  Understanding is also no substitute for action.  No amount of reason can be used to combat force, either, once force is initiated.



> ...notice what's going on in the world around you, and push for social justice, as a way of self-defense.



"Social justice" is a euphemism for egalitarianism, which creates _injustice_ in the name of equality.  Forced government transfers of wealth will not stop violence.  Only the willingess and the ability to combat violence on the part of the _individual_ makes any _real_ difference.  Asserting the opposite is again seeking convenient excuses for individual misdeeds.



> Look at the logic of putting your hands up, and "action beats reaction"--well, same logic, different arena.



Quite incorrect.  Your misapplication of this "same logic" is predicated on the assumption that "social justice" will decrease violence, which it does not.  Violence is and always will be an _individual choice_.  Even the most affluent of human beings chooses violence for a variety of reasons;  the majority of serial killers are middle-class white males.  

No amount of preemptive social engineering will eliminate the need to be prepared, physically, to combat violence -- even if it decreasd overall levels of societal crime.  That is what makes such an attitude ridiculous when the topic at hand is real defense on the physical level.



> If you don't want to do that, OK fine. But that's a political choice, not a pragmatic one. Pragmatics takes a deep breath, says, well, this sucks and I don't morally approve, but fact is, the more jobs/education, the better living conditions, the less crime.



The more guns, the less crime.  Do you pragmatically advocate government firearms handouts?

Pragmatism in *the mechanics and logistics* of self-defense is a physical reality.  Pragmatism _as a political philosophy_ is an entirely different thing, for it substitutes outcomes for moral guidelines.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 18, 2003)

Well, first off--nope, not gonna run out and read more Ayn Rand. read three of the novels early in my teens. It's simply not serious intellectual work. 

Second--re-read the novels. It's Aryan pride--and, connected to some fairly ugly notions about the Superiority of Men. But in any case, my object wasn't to refute it--it was to make fun of it.

Now on more serious issues--my point is that calling something, "objective," doesn't make it so. I was pointing out that on the basis of what's been presented, you may believe that the roor causes of crime and violenece are...and I may believe that they are...but these are positions based on belief. And only on belief. 

Then too, it is scientifically speaking a LOT easier to provide evidence that the root causes of crime are in material conditions such as poverty, than that they are in these intangibles called, "morals." For one thing, you can only provide second or third-hand evidnce of these, "morals," while I can easily provide evidence of poverty's link to crime. Doesn't mean I'm right, you're wrong--just means that the objective evidence is probably going to support my argument.

As for the stuff about self-defense, it's actually a fairly traditional argument. You may not feel that it makes sense--but I don't see how it's less sensible to work for, say, safer streets than it is to avoid trouble when possible.

It's a nice dream to believe that if everybody carried guns, we'd all be safer. The news from, say, Baghdad does not seem to support this notion. But let's compromise--disarm all men, and require all women to carry all the time.

Oh yes.."social justice," is not an euphemism for anything but social justice. One may assume that such ideas are accompanied by others, or that those who hold such tenets also hold other tenets...but nope. What's as much, last I checked, OUR SOCIETY WAS egalitarian in the sense of, "equal justice under the law." Nor does this necessarily entail wealth distribution, though to be sure one wonders how justice is to be achieved if some start off with advantages. The assumption that everbody who holds one of these beliefs necessarily holds all the others is precisely why I mentioned liberals, of whom I ain't one. But you might read West, "Race Matters," for a way out of the whole tired cons/libs paradigm...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 18, 2003)

Ayn Rand may have "in fact" been a big fat doodyhead, but you are certianly not!  

I thought your article was good, and that it might be a good wake up call for many "martial artists."  

PAUL

P.S. Interesting arguements on both sides of the dootyhead, by the way; Phil being pro-dootyhead in this case, Robert being anti-dootyhead. Fun to read....opcorn:

And...also fun to say! (Dootyhead, dootyhead, dootyhead...)  :rofl:


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 18, 2003)

Nightingale raises an interesting point in that it seems somewhat... bizarre, really... to have fixated on a single quote from Ayn Rand used to illustrate a point in the article.



> Well, first off--nope, not gonna run out and read more Ayn Rand. read three of the novels early in my teens.



You may be content to pontificate from relative igorance based on memories of works of fiction you read years ago, whereas I've _reread_ both novels within the last two months in conjunction with ongoing reading of Objectivist nonfiction work, including the philosophical journal(s) I mentioned.  Now, whom do you think is more qualified to offer an informed opinion?  You're basically telling us that you've formed your opinion and nothing will change it, while arrogantly telling others to reread material with which you yourself are not intimately familiar -- all because you didn't like it when you read it and seeing a reference to it has apparently upset you.

That's faintly ridiculous.

If you wish to jump at shadows and read "Aryan pride" into Rand's work while offering nothing of _substance_ to support your opinion, you may.  If you were at all educated on the topic you _might_ have drawn parallels to Nietzsche's work and mentioned Nietzschean influence on portions of her philosophy (heck, I would even have accepted a passing reference to Gene Roddenberry's _Andromeda_) and we could have had a fairly interesting conversation about it.  Instead you're just shrieking "Aryan pride!" without any real understanding of the material you're criticizing.



> But in any case, my object wasn't to refute it--it was to make fun of it.



Well, at least you admit that you're not equipped to have a serious discussion about it.  Why did you feel it necessary to drag the thread off-topic with pointless ridicule when we could have been more productive?  I think you need to examine the attitude with which you approach online discussion.



> Now on more serious issues--my point is that calling something, "objective," doesn't make it so.



Calling someone a "doodyhead" doesn't mean they're _not_ objective, either.



> I was pointing out that on the basis of what's been presented, you may believe that the roor causes of crime and violenece are...and I may believe that they are...but these are positions based on belief. And only on belief.



Beliefs can be judged by the degree to which they correspond to reality.  Opinions are not automatically equally valid (or invalid) for simply being opinions.



> Then too, it is scientifically speaking a LOT easier to provide evidence that the root causes of crime are in material conditions such as poverty, than that they are in these intangibles called, "morals."



Actually, it's a lot easier to prove that only individuals "cause" individual actions, because all individuals choose to do what they do.  Blaming their choices on external causes is simply a means of excusing themselves from responsibility for what they've done.



> As for the stuff about self-defense, it's actually a fairly traditional argument.



Being traditional does not make it any less ridiculous.



> It's a nice dream to believe that if everybody carried guns, we'd all be safer. The news from, say, Baghdad does not seem to support this notion. But let's compromise--disarm all men, and require all women to carry all the time.



It's a nice dream to think that if nobody carried guns, we'd all be safer.



> Oh yes.."social justice," is not an euphemism for anything but social justice.



Exactly.  The problem with those who use the term is that they confuse egalitarianism with justice.



> OUR SOCIETY WAS egalitarian in the sense of, "equal justice under the law."



That is a misapplication of the common contemporary usage of egalitarianism.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

Dear Phil:

Fiddlesticks.

I'm going to let this go now, because there simply isn't any point in discussing "objectivist," "philosophy."

And, because you've now proven my point: this doesn't have anything to do with the (imagined) direct perception of reality. It's a political disagreement.

I'll fess up to my ideology, if'n you'll fess up to yours.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 19, 2003)

I haven't "proven" your point at all.  You've simply taken your ball and gone home because you're not equipped to have a substantive discussion on the topic.  You've made several statements about a topic on which you've admitted you're not informed, failed to support your assertions, and declared the topic not worth discussing when it became clear that you weren't going to get away with sophistry.  That's fine by me.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 19, 2003)

This is a total UNEDUCATED opinion on the subject... Its been YEARS since I read ANY Ayn Rand... and then I only did so at the behest of my Ex...

I do recall drawing a lot of parralells between Nietzsche and the things she wrote about... in that  i saw her work as very Nietzschesque in vision... I dont neccessarily think that makes her work ARYAN, so much as she wrote about characters that had the "Strong Survive, Thrive and Prosper"  mindset.  So the "Perfect people" were the dominant Chars.  

As far as her objectifcation/victimization of women, thats the role she chose to write her characters into... perhaps she sees the workd thru those eyes.  I know a lot of women who do... some fight against it, some despair and accept it...   Everyone has their own oppinions on this. 

Robert, yours is obviously AGAINST the objectification of women, and thats fine for you to have that opinion, but don't automatically assume its right beause its yours.   THAT is the true root of conflict, IMO.  Of course, its just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

OK, just a question. If Ayn Rand doesn't have anything to do with self-defense, then why was she included in Phil's article?

And if social philosophy doesn't have anything to do with self-defense, then why was it included in Phil's article?

Yes, I get the part about, "objective," and "realistic." But Rand's ideas are about as unrealistic as ideas get--and so are her books. 

And yes, that matters in the martial arts. We read guys all the time, yelling about how theirs is the only realistic view of, "the street," how traditional arts can't work because they're, "unrealistic," how their style is the first, "objective," style that ever was. And they, very often, are living in a survivalist la-la land made out of equal parts, "Navy SEALS," "Cobra," and "Cyborg."

If the philosophy don't matter--don't bring it up in the first place. But don't try and tell me that only one kind of philosophy matters, and disguise that choice of philosophies as a purely-objective, experience-based rejection of all philosophy.

Sheesh.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 19, 2003)

All right, at this point I'm going to have to blunt, as you persist in this even after a moderator split the thread.  The volumes of social philosophy related to Ayn Rand with which you seem to have become so obsessed occupy a SINGLE PARAGRAPH in the ariticle.  Specifically, the quote was used to underscore the point that wishing doesn't change anything with regard to the realities of violence;  no amount of _feeling_ that someone shouldn't be at threat removes the threat that they may pose.   I will quote the entire paragraph here:



> The "feelings are reality" principle is widespread in UBSD adherents and encompasses much more than this single example.  Ayn Rand once criticized those who did not "believe in" objective reality.  Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed, she quoted, or Wishing wont make it so.  What you want  what you desire and what you feel  makes absolutely no difference with regard to the realities of force and self-defense.  Just because you'd rather not live in a world where all people who violate your personal space represent a potential threat doesn't mean this isn't true.  You ignore these realities at your peril, for that reality invariably punishes those who blithely disregard it.



That's it.  That's the whole thing.  Yet instead of pursuing this in the split thread, you seem insistent on bickering about it in yet _another_ thread.  We'll set aside for the moment the fact that you're spewing volumes of hot air about a topic on which you are woefully under-informed, drawing from your memory of novels read as a teenager and entirely unsupplemented with any of the volumes of nonfiction work published by Rand or those within the Objectivist movement in the intervening years.

Has it occurred to you that you're fixating on something out of all proportion to its representation in the article?  The whole point was that your desires change nothing about the realities of force -- and that "building a better tomorrow" has no bearing on the _immediate need_ to deal with a would-be mugger or rapist.

This is not to say that the philosophy _doesn't matter_ -- only that you are fixating on certain portions of it to the exclusion of points more salient to the subject matter of the article.

For that matter, I cannot emphasize enough that your opinions on Rand are _fundamentally ignorant_, relegating any shrieking you do about how much you hate her or her novels to the realm of the irrelevant.

Are you always this obnoxious?  Do you regularly disregard the actions of moderators in order to get gain attention in so petulant a fashion?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

Let me offer you guys two important tips:

1. Never keep your mind so open that your brain falls out. While capable of abuse, this stands as a useful warning against going back through "Atlas Shrugged," and trying to decipher John Galt's loonbox speech from the witness stand.

2. Freud was right: the structure of defense mechanisms is that of the old bucket joke, as in "Hey, I need my bucket back," to which the reply is "First, I never borrowed your bucket, second I gave it back last week, and third it had a hole in it anyway." example: "Racist? There's no racism in Ayn Rand. The book only concerns white people and women who like to get beat up, and anyway, you haven't read it in a long time."

And by the way--if we're gonna apply that "go back and read it," argument? How ya doin' with West's "Race Matters?"  It's a lot better written, shorter, smarter and more knowledgeable than that Rand--and, it offers ways to negotiate between so-called liberals and so-called conservatives.

But I'm betting that you'vee rejected, out of hand, that book. I guess we all make decisions about what we see as silly.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 19, 2003)

Never read it, I dont even know it...

Id be open to, if the subject interested me... whats it about?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

One might ask whether you are regularly so incapable of defending your ideas that you must resort to ad hominem attacks rather than discuss them.

However and since you ask, the passage you cite is central to your argument--as I noted elsewhere, if it don't matter, then a) why'd you put it in there in the first place, b) why does it need so much defense, c) why keep reasserting that it does in fact represent the one and only way to see reality?

You are using Rand's ideas to justify a particular view of reality, then applying that view of reality as a ground for your ideas about self defense. Which--talk about going back and re-reading!--I agreed with, in large part. But which--talk about seizing on just one part to the exclusion of everything else!--I found grounded on some odd philosophy about "reality."

I'm going to drop this discussion now, because your rhetoric seems to be escalating--to be blunt, you're getting more and more insulting for no good reason--and because I can't see where I will learn anything further. 

Thank you for the discussion.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 19, 2003)

Technopunk,

To grossly oversimplify, there is indeed a heavy Nietszchean influence on Rand's work, just as there is a heavy Aristotlean influence (if you can call it that -- Objectivism is really a permutation of Aristotlean philosophy).  The difference between Nietszche and Rand can be summed up in the way in which the two settle disagreements.  In Nietzsche's vision (again, I am simplifying greatly), if you and I disagree, "truth" is determined by which of us is stronger, by the "will to power."  In Rand's view, "truth" is determined by comparison of our opinions to objective reality through reason;  her philosophy rejects the _initiation_ of force as irrational.



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> Never keep your mind so open that your brain falls out.



Why, that's great advice.  In fact, Rand said exactly the same thing, though more eloquently:



> "What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an 'open mind' but an _active_ mind -- a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them _critically_. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood."
> 
> - Ayn Rand



Let's compare this concept to the one you espouse:



> While capable of abuse, this stands as a useful warning against going back through "Atlas Shrugged," and trying to decipher John Galt's loonbox speech from the *witness stand*. [emphasis added]



You are essentially saying, "Because I did not understand it, because I found it 'unreadable,' *you* should not try -- because if I do not like it or did not understand it, no one should and no one can."  That is rather a remarkable attitude, for it is simultaneously arrogant _and_ ignorant.  It takes a truly brave soul to stand in the face of others and proclaim, "Let us embrace ignorance actively!  Shun learning, for you can pontificate just as easily on topics about which you have little or no knowledge!"

There's nothing "unreadable" about Galt's speech, and there's certainly nothing that cannot be understood by someone with at least moderate intelligence and a high school reading level (though teenagers may indeed find it challenging).  If anything, Rand is frequently criticized by academics for addressing a populist audience rather than an intellectual one, making her philosophy accessible to the general population while generally shunning (and angering) those whose chosen profession was the field to which she aspired.

Whether the lengthy philosophical speech grafted onto the plot of _Atlas_ makes for good _fiction_ is debatable.  The worst example of this approach to novels can be found in _Accosting the Golden Spire_, which -- I am not making this up -- imparts (awkwardly and obviously) the principles of contemporary double-entry Accounting in the course of relating a fictional [ostensibly] adventure story.  But of course, you did not comment on any of these very real criticisms that can be made of Rand -- because they require _informed_ opinions of the subject.

Of course, I have neglected to mention something very important about the above quote -- because it *demonstrates in your own words your ignorance of Rand's work*.  Your memory of the books is so dim that you have confused Howard Roark's courtroom speech with John Galt's radio address.



> "Racist? There's no racism in Ayn Rand. The book only concerns white people and women who like to get beat up, and anyway, you haven't read it in a long time."



Please don't insult the intelligence of readers here by engaging in intellectually bankrupt ploys.  You are incapable of engaging in substantive discussions of this subject and instead are resorting to a variety of transparent and obvious tactics in an attempt to draw attention away from this lack.  

The absence of black characters does not make a book "racist."  As a white man, I could no more write convincingly about black protagonists than could Rand.  Do you regularly decry as "racist" all works of fiction that do not feature a statistically calculated multicultural cast of characters approved by the NAACP's board of directors and in keeping with contemporary government racial quotas?

I have pointed out that Rand had serious problems with her sexuality and with her personal life -- problems which affected her work.  (Another criticism one could make -- one who actually is _informed_ on the topic -- is that Rand's works take place in a universe that is essentially childless.  Rand herself never had children.)  You conveniently dismiss this in mischaracterizing what I have written in order to ignore points with which you cannot contend.

I have repeatedly offered insight into real criticisms of Rand's work and then pointed out that you did not make these criticisms because, by your own admission, you have very limited knowledge of the topic.  I could just as easily say, "Gosh, that Homer was a jerk because the Odyssey is unreadable," referring to my high school reading of the epic poem as evidence of my basis for this conclusion.  

I could further engage in arguments with a contemporary devotee of Greek literature, who had read the Odyssey within the last two months, telling him he was being "defensive" when he identified my flawed logic, pointed out criticisms I could have made and did not, and repeatedly reminded me that I was commenting on something of which I had only limited memory.  I would, in the course of all this, be making quite a fool of myself -- which is what you are doing now.

Pointing out your admitted lack of knowledge on the topic is a valid point to raise -- for you continue to offer opinions on something of which you have no real grounds to make those opinions.  You have demonstrated that you cannot effectively defend those opinions, either.  Are you just typing to see yourself talk, at this point?



> And by the way--if we're gonna apply that "go back and read it," argument? How ya doin' with West's "Race Matters?"  It's a lot better written, shorter, smarter and more knowledgeable than that Rand--and, it offers ways to negotiate between so-called liberals and so-called conservatives.



That is flawed logic, I'm afraid.  If I was offering my "learned" opinion on West's work in general or on _Race Matters_ in particularly, you would be quite right in asking me how familiar I was with West's material and how recently I had read it.  If I was offering ignorant criticism of West that was easily refuted by someone more familiar with the material, I would be making a fool of myself on the scale of which you are doing yourself disservice.



> But I'm betting that you'vee rejected, out of hand, that book.



I suggest you give up gambling;  you'll end up penniless.  I have not _read_ that book and therefore would not offer an opinion of it (or West).  If I _had_ read the book, I would be capable of something more substantive than, "West was a doodyhead, in point of fact."



> I guess we all make decisions about what we see as silly.



That's very true.  The difference, however, is that many of us make such decisions on the basis of informed opinions and actual study of the topics on which we comment, whereas you seem content to go on endlessly about something of which you have only limited information.  I can think of no better illustration of the old slogan, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  I hate to use that quote, as it is used to great effect by sophists hoping to evade a real argument -- but in this case, after offering a lengthy argument to refute your feeble assertions, I can think of no more appropriate conclusion.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> One might ask whether you are regularly so incapable of defending your ideas that you must resort to ad hominem attacks rather than discuss them.



One might.  To do so, however, one would have to ignore the great lengths to which I've gone to refute, substantively, your uninformed assertions on this topic.  One would have to further ignore the manner in which you approached this conversation.  Finally, one would have to believe, incorrectly, that any criticism of your behavior is a fallacious ad hominem attack, when in fact it is offered merely as direct criticism of the attitude you display.  Ad hominem is considered a fallacy because it does not address the subject of an argument -- but when the subject of criticism is the behavior of the individual in question, the _argument_ is not the issue.



> However and since you ask, the passage you cite is central to your argument--as I noted elsewhere, if it don't matter, then a) why'd you put it in there in the first place, b) why does it need so much defense, c) why keep reasserting that it does in fact represent the one and only way to see reality?



If you wish to argue that your whims and your feelings _do_ make a difference -- that what you feel _does_ change the potential threat offered by any individual approaching you, you certainly may do so.  You would be terribly wrong, however.



> You are using Rand's ideas to justify a particular view of reality, then applying that view of reality as a ground for your ideas about self defense.



No, I used a quote from Rand to _underscore_ an idea that is _axiomatic_ and on which many different writers have commented.  I used her because I like her, but I did not use her work to _justify_ anything.  To use it in that manner I would have been obligated to provide a logical derivation for it.  Instead I used it simply to emphasize the fact that your _desires_ have no bearing on the behavior of another human being intent on doing you harm.



> Which--talk about going back and re-reading!--I agreed with, in large part. But which--talk about seizing on just one part to the exclusion of everything else!--I found grounded on some odd philosophy about "reality."



That is a very verbose way to say, "I know you are, but what am I?"  Tributes to Pee Wee Herman aside, you are still missing the point -- and that is that you dragged the topic into a discussion of Rand _as a person_, offering no substantive criticisms of her _ideas_.  When pressed on this, you claimed it was never your intent to do so -- merely to ridicule.  That is fine, but do not now attempt to express outrage that ideas you did not present were not discussed.



> I'm going to drop this discussion now, because your rhetoric seems to be escalating--to be blunt, you're getting more and more insulting for no good reason--and because I can't see where I will learn anything further.



I welcome the cessation of your uninformed comments on this subject.  That is the reason I pursued this tangent in the first place.  I never mind reading opinions with which I disagree, but I abhor ignorance masquerading as input.

Incidentally, I have not "escalated" my "rhetoric" at all.  I have simply been critical of you and your attitude where criticism was warranted.  I certainly understand and concur with your conclusion that you will learn nothing further -- but then, you were unwilling to learn _anything at all_, as evidenced by your exhortation to avoid reading and understanding, at all costs, novels you did not like.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

You're quite right to note that I've got Roark and Galt confused. And you'd think I wouldn't, given that Omaha Steaks come from John Galt Boulevard.

I am sorry that I did not take the time to work out a politer way to disagree at the outset. No wonder you're pissed.

However, having jumped in, I will tell you--and you may make what you will of this--that I've no interest in going back and disentangling the spagetti snarls in Rand's books. I'd rather read "Mein Kampf," again--it makes better sense, and is better written.

Why? well, you're certainly entitled to believe that it's because I'm a) incapable of discussion, b) a left-wing bigot, c) unwilling to examine my own ideas, d) unwilling to read books I don't like. Sure, riiiight.

Why in the world, though, would one want to page back through books whose explict and open philosophy rests on the notion that there are among us an elite few, better than everybody else, who should be--and this is explicit, if memory serves--immune to the petty little laws and mores governing all the masses surrounding them of little, lesser people? Why would I want to go carefully back through a book ("Fountainhead") one of whose central characters, a haughty and icily-beautiful woman incapable of creating anything herself but willing to recognize it in the Great Men she encounters, is protractedly beated and raped by good ol' Howie Hitle--oops, Roark--and who wakes up, bruised and bleeding, on the toilet floor, the next morning, with a smile?

This stuff's explicit, right? How much interpretation does it take? Could you show me where it isn't true of these books, rather than proferring insults and claiming they're not insults?

Sorry, man, and again I think I might've been politer at the outset. But this stuff is spinach, and I say the hell with it.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> I'm going to let this go now, because there simply isn't any point in discussing 'objectivist,' 'philosophy.'
> 
> I'm going to drop this discussion now...
> ...



How many times are you going to vow not to respond again to this topic?



> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> No wonder you're pissed.



I'm not angry at all.  I just hate to see anyone pontificating from ignorance.



> However, having jumped in, I will tell you--and you may make what you will of this--that I've no interest in going back and disentangling the spagetti snarls in Rand's books. I'd rather read "Mein Kampf," again--it makes better sense, and is better written.



Really?  Are you fluent in German?  The only way to know if a given translated document is well written is to read it in its original language;  otherwise you're simply offering input on the translator's abilities.



> Why? well, you're certainly entitled to believe that it's because I'm a) incapable of discussion, b) a left-wing bigot, c) unwilling to examine my own ideas. Sure, riiiight.



Do you consider the statement, "Sure, riiiight" to be a substantive refutation of accusations I've 

a) made on the basis of your unwillingness to debate in good faith by your own admission; 

b) not made in that I've never called you either "left-wing" or a "bigot;" or 

c) implied on the basis of choice (a)?



> Why in the world, though, would one want to page back through books whose explict and open philosophy rests on the notion that there are among us an elite few, better than everybody else, who should be--and this is explicit, if memory serves--immune to the petty little laws and mores governing all the masses surrounding them of little, lesser people?



One might perhaps "page back through" the books in question because that is _not_, except in the most superficial and distorted "understanding," the focus and the philosophy behind those novels.  Rand's works are about ideal men who adhere to objectively and logical moral principles, remaining steadfast to their convictions and intact in their integrity despite great challenges and hardships.  You may not consider these _realistic_ ideals, but they are _noble_ ideals nonetheless.  

Rand's protagonists generally do not attempt to evade responsibility for their actions;  rather, when they defy the majority (these "laws and mores" of which you speak) they do so with full knowledge of the consequences, entirely content to suffer them for the sake of remaining true to their principles.  This is not at all synonymous with believing themselves a privileged "elite" who are above the laws and mores constraining others.

In point of fact, it is Rand's _villains_ who believe they are an elite class privileged to run the lives of others while remaining above the laws themselves.  Elsworth Toohey of _The Fountainhead_ is the most visceral example -- and he goes on at great length in monologue about precisely why he believes this to be true.



> Why would I want to go carefully back through a book ("Fountainhead") one of whose central characters, a haughty and icily-beautiful woman incapable of creating anything herself but willing to recognize it in the Great Men she encounters, is protractedly beated and raped by good ol' Howie Hitle--oops, Roark--and who wakes up, bruised and bleeding, on the toilet floor, the next morning, with a smile?



One might imagine you would have no interest in Rand's sexual oddities.  However, if you were familiar with the novel rather than drawing on very old memories, you would recognize that the character is deeper than that -- and her depth explains her self-destructive urges, up to and including a desire to be dominated and violated.  Is that great literature?  Probably not, at least in its most "bodice-ripping" passages.  It is not, however, the central theme of the novel, except to the extent that Dominique Francon's self-destructive desires lead her to attempt to destroy the career of the very "Great Man" she recognizes before she marries, in serial fashion, Roark's opposite and then his biggest fan (and greatest enemy).



> This stuff's explicit, right? How much interpretation does it take?



A considerable amount, given that you're missing the most interesting parts of it.  Rands novels are long, melodramatic, and quite involved.  They may or may not be "High Literature."  They are not, however, the simple caricatures you are attempting to make them.

Two different people can have wildly different opinions of the same piece of literature.  Both can be correct if they can support their descriptions.  I hate to see anyone, however, drawing conclusions on the basis of woefully incomplete knowledge.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

Translation: I was right about the near fascism, and right about the misogyny. Thanks. I see, though, that I left out the way that "foreignness," in these novels tends to be linked to evil.

Oh well. Could be worse--could be, "Star Wars."

hey, how's Syracuse this fall? I miss the foliage turning..though not the dead of the winter.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> Translation: I was right about the near fascism, and right about the misogyny.



I believe I stated early on that Rand was, by her own admission a "male chauvinist" whose writings could be seen as misogynist (at least in certain portions).  You most certainly were *not* right, however, about any "near fascism," nor have you managed to support such an assertion.

Fascism is government control.  Rand's heroes consistently fight _against_ government control.  _Atlas Shrugged_ is one long morality play about the destructive effects of government "fascism," as the government takes increasingly more control of private industry in an attempt to achieve utopia (while achieving the opposite -- the destruction of all society).

If you desire greater insight into the implications of her writing on feminist topics, you might find _Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand_ edifying.  I have it and I have read it.  Have you?



> Thanks. I see, though, that I left out the way that "foreignness," in these novels tends to be linked to evil.



You assert this, yet provide no examples of it.  I can provide an example, though it doesn't prove your assertion -- the portion in _Atlas Shrugged_ in which part of the Taggart line is nationalized by socialist Mexico.  An ignorant critic could, I suppose, point to this as linking "foreignness" with evil, but he or she would be missing completely the point that it is a criticism of socialist government policy (to which a nation like Mexico is closer than our own, at least at the time of Rand's writing).


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

I see. There's no link between foreigness and evil in this sort of ideology, it's just that evil is associated with dirty rotten socialism Rand perceived to exist in Mexico.

And the phallicization of women characters--rendering them as men, essentially, since actual femininity appears to be experienced as threatening--is actually feminism. 

Oh well. At least we're discussing ideas rather than yelling quite so much. I'd advise, though, that you just present your ideas rather than trying to teach me how to do lit crit--in that particular field, you're trying to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 19, 2003)

Do you approach every debate in this petulant and intellectually bankrupt fashion?



> I see. There's no link between foreigness and evil in this sort of ideology, it's just that evil is associated with dirty rotten socialism Rand perceived to exist in Mexico.



She certainly viewed socialism as evil.  If you wish to _support_ your assertion that there is some link between "evil" and "foreigness" [sic], you are welcome to offer illustrative examples, but you haven't and I suspect you won't.  I don't fault you for that;  it would be difficult for anyone attempting to argue from memory about books they read once years ago.



> And the phallicization of women characters--rendering them as men, essentially, since actual femininity appears to be experienced as threatening--is actually feminism.



I did not say that.  I said if you were interested in exploring feminist commentary on Rand's writing, there's an excellent text through which you could do just that.  You've missed one of the most "phallic" of concepts within Rand's fiction, too -- the worship of the skyscraper and of "creation" in the _Fountainhead_.

It seems I'm doing a better job of arguing your poorly defined points than _you_ are doing, though ultimately the assertions you're making don't really support your underlying thesis (the scholarly assertion that Rand was a "racist doodyhead").



> Oh well. At least we're discussing ideas rather than yelling quite so much.



At least I am discussing ideas;  I'm not sure what you're doing.



> I'd advise, though, that you just present your ideas rather than trying to teach me how to do lit crit--in that particular field, you're trying to teach your grandma how to suck eggs.



"Teach your grandma how to suck eggs?"  If you continue in this fashion you'll have devolved past Pee Wee Herman to the status of intellectual fetus before this is over.

You have demonstrated a marked inability to discuss ideas substantively, preferring instead to act like a child.  I could take both sides of this argument and probably give myself a challenge from either perspective.  I'm not sure what you're doing here, but it isn't quite "discussing ideas."

Isn't it roughly time for you to declare that you're through with this thread again?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 19, 2003)

Dear Phil:

I see no point at all in continuing this conversation. As before, I apologize for my initial bad manners. However, they do not legitimate your insults.

You may find this sort of pseudo-intellectual badminton fun; I gave it up some time ago, and should have known better than to pick up that particular silly racket again.

Enjoy what you will doubtless conceive as the victory of "objective," and "realist," discussion. And in your response, which I will be avoiding, enjoy having the last word.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 19, 2003)

Is this rilly the end or what?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> I see no point at all in continuing this conversation. As before, I apologize for my initial bad manners. However, they do not legitimate your insults.



You are blind to your own insults, but complain about those used in equal measure in response.



> You may find this sort of pseudo-intellectual badminton fun; I gave it up some time ago, and should have known better than to pick up that particular silly racket again.



Actually, I prefer _fully_ intellectual bandminton, but when faced only with ignorant pseudo-intellectuality in the form of a critic who complains about literature and individuals of which and whom he has only limited knowledge, I must be content to work with the lesser challenges presented.



> Enjoy what you will doubtless conceive as the victory of "objective," and "realist," discussion. And in your response, which I will be avoiding, enjoy having the last word.



Anyone want to take bets on whether this really is his last response to the thread?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 1, 2003)

Hey...I'll strike up a constructive conversation about Ayn Rand...why not.

Iwas wondering, Phil, just because you seem to have read a lot about Rand's philosophies, which I have not, do you actually like and agree with her philosophies, or do you disagree? Regardless of you answer, what specifically do you like/dislike, and why.

I directed this towards Phil, but anyone knowledgable on the subject can answer. I alway like to learn more.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Oct 2, 2003)

I like it quite a lot and agree with most of it.  Where she and I diverge is on the topic of spirituality.  Rand was an atheist, but I am not.


----------

