RoR: Forum

Linz, I really enjoyed this article. There is so much to say about Nietzsche, and so much to say about Nietzsche and Rand (especially since the former had a significant impact on the latter; see not only Rand's early published work, but her unpublished stories, such as "The Little Street"). It's the kind of thing that one could devote a whole book to! More on that below. :)

I like the fact that you admit being "enchanted" by Nietzsche's work. I have always been enchanted by him. And he has obviously had that effect on people from all over the political spectrum: individualists, Nazis, and even Bolsheviks (see Bernice Rosenthal's recent book, New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism). Yes, your comment about Nietzsche and Tsarist Russia has historical roots: his immense impact on Silver Age Russia (roughly, the era between the end of the 19th century and around 1924), which just so happened to be the cultural milieu in which Ayn Rand came of age.

The matter of Nietzsche's influence on Rand has been the subject of much debate, as one can see from books such as Ronald Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand, my own Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, and a new book, edited by Robert Mayhew, Essays on We the Living. Just a reminder to readers here: The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has recently made a "Call for Papers" on the topic of Rand and Nietzsche. Check it out!

Post 1

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 1:00pm

nietzsche can be both an incredible aid to and a tremendous hindrance against liberty. He's only one of three philosophers in the past 2000 years to launch a serious attack on the anti-ability /self sacrifice ethic*, and in some ways he sometimes even outdoes rand's critique, or completely anticipates it. Nietzsche's concept of "ressentiment" in the geneaology sure sounds a lot like "hatred of the good for being good", yes? the problem is there's also plenty in nietzsche that one can find distateful. his individualism and demand for self development conflict with his social darwinist sounding (at times) elitism and his glorification of force. but, if pressed about it, I think he would say that these contradictions were fully intentional-- he seems like the kind of man who wants not so much to lay down a definite answer, but more to provoke his reader into becoming a fellow iconoclast, or at least questioning received ideas. nietzsche is not here to lay down an answer. for him to spoonfeed you an answer instead of provoking you into coming up with your own would be very un-nietzschean of him, wouldn't it?

*Nietzsche, Rand, and the third is an obscure fellow by the name of Max Stirner. He's a lot like nietzsche, very similar writing style (he predates N, so he's not an imitation) but much more consistent. he's the ultimate subjectivist egoist in a way. if you're interested, it would be very fun to write an objectivist analysis of him-- I've wanted an excuse to pit Stirner and Rand against eachother for a while.

Post 2

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 2:27pm

Robert, I've heard of Max Stirner; Michael Moorcock listed him as a philosophical influence in an introduction to a reissue of one of his novels. I also found a Max Stirner page with an English translation of The Ego and His Own at nonserviam.com.

Post 3

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 3:01pm

Holy shite, that's my Yahoo! ID. LOL...and I got it from a Joyce book.

*sings* "It's a small world after all!!"

J (a.k.a. Nonserviam81)

Post 4

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 4:36pm

Please Jeremy, no Disney songs. If you start quoting Disney songs I'll have to beat my inner child over the head, straitjacket him, and pump him full of Thorazine lest he start flushing cherrybombs down toilets and siccing cats on Mickey Mouse.

Post 5

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 5:08pm

"It's a world of laughter
- A world of tears
It's a world of hopes
- And a world of fears
There's so much that we share
- That it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small, small world

There is just one moon
- And one golden sun
And a smile means
- Friendship to every one
Though the mountains divide
- And the oceans are wide
It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small, small world!!!"

Post 6

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 5:10pm

Sorry for diverging, and the blue text. Glitch in the Matrix.

Post 7

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 5:29pm

Aaagggh! I'm melting! I'm meeelllllting!!!

Post 8

Monday, March 15, 2004 - 6:12pm

Dr. Sciabarra:
I was unaware of a novel of Rand called "The Little Street." Is there a version of it on the internet? If it is unpublished, do you have ideas on how I could track it down? Thanks.

Post 9

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:48am

Seriously, I happen to like a few Disney songs. The best one is "When You Wish upon a Star." In fact, the sheet music to that song was reproduced on the inside front cover of SONGWRITERS MARKET.

Post 10

Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:56am

If it enhances your sense of life, Rodney, more power to you. For my part: if I wanted sap I'd jam a spigot into a maple tree and hang a bucket on it.

Post 11

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 9:12am

So... what say we get back to the topic at hand. anyone else want to weigh in on Ayn contra Fritz?

Post 12

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:36am

Robert - thanks for your (in vain) attempt to bring this thread back on-topic. I'm really surprised & disappointed that no one wants to "weigh in" on Friedrich vs Ayn. As Dr Chris says at the top of this thread, there is *so* much that *can* be said about the crossover between the two. What struck me reading her Journals was that the influence of FN on her was much greater, & lasted longer, than she let on. I don't blame her in the slightest, since, as I say, he was *extremely* seductive. I often wonder if, *without* her, I myself would have seen through his offering merely the flip side of everything he affected to despise.

Linz

Post 13

Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:27am

" I don't blame her in the slightest, since, as I say, he was *extremely* seductive. I often wonder if, *without* her, I myself would have seen through his offering merely the flip side of everything he affected to despise."

I think he might take issue with the idea that this is "all" he's doing. he might ask, as a counter example, what type of world we would have if, rather than john galt and co. being expected to sacrifice themselves for the good of the masses, what would happen if the masses were expected to sacrifice for them. or, more precisely, if they were expected to do the sacrificing --N doesnt seem to be demanding suicide out of anyone (such would be very un nietzschean of him) so much as giving the elites free reign to initiate force. if the masses are essentially worthless, non productive "intellectual ballast" (to use rand's term, as she seems to have absorbed more than a fair share of this sentiment), Nietzsche might ask why not initiate force against them? who needs em? where this fails is that it evades that if you abuse the masses enough, they'll organize and come for your head. but then again, they do that anyway in most historical eras.

Post 14

Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 2:58pm

It has been some time since I have read Nietzche - or this very good article, for that matter. Now I look forward to re-reading both.

The appeal of Nietzche to me has always been his sense of *purpose* - the sun that shines from his aphorisms, and powers his iconoclasm. It is this sense of purpose that makes him despise "lesser" men, who seem to him like wind up toys, mechanically following the tracks of convention and respectability. This is what makes his books worth picking up, and it is mostly this that accounts for his continuing appeal - to the non-Fascists at least.

However, this energy of his turns in on itself. He became a lonely and isolated man, and consequently one might say his later work, which his solitude allowed him to stylistically perfect, suffers equally from solitude's downside - lack of stringent and frequent criticism! One arrives at "Ecce Homo"'--type ravings via this route.

Of course, the Fascists made the error that Nietzche's purposiveness and optimism - rather than his solitary egomania - necessarily dictated his ruthless conclusions. Thus does one start out wanting to save the world, and end up slaughtering half of it.

It was a terrible error, but in some ways one might understand Nietzche's optimism coming to rest rather irrationally; after all, science was revealing a universe bereft of a God, where man was insignificant rather than central, where all was mechanically determined thanks to Newton, and where the cheergerm Helmholtz prophesied the inevitable Heat Death of everything! It would be easy to consider man trivial, and life rather pointless as the rational conclusion of all this. Nietzche chose the harder path of optimism in the face of this - even if it turned out to be a far more crooked one, the deep pitfalls of which Lindsay traces very exactly here, with his close reading of and engagement with his subject matter. The hapless G Stolyarov, take note.

Now, is it too much to hope for the Perigo-Nola-Kelley thingy resurfacing too at some point?

- Daniel

Post 15

Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:19pm

It seems that Mr. Barnes has an odd, vicious, and irrational vendetta against me, not merely insulting me in the boards pertaining to my own article, but spilling this (gratuitously, I must add) onto other boards as well. This, to me, seems not like the behavior of an Objectivist, but of a whiny, insult-hurling infant whose petty feelings were hurt when I referred to the Beatles as the beginning of an Orwellian downward spiral in popular culture.

I will also add that Mr. Barnes has contributed nothing constructive to this organization. His count of articles and gallery works stands at ABSOLUTE ZERO, and his Atlas Point count approaches -20, and will continue to head in that direction should he maintain his behavior. And this man presumes not only to dispense his ad hominem attacks without warrant, but also to insult the person on this forum with the HIGHEST number of Atlas Points and an extensive list of contributions in discourse, articles, and gallery items alike.

This looks all too much like hatred of the good to me.

I have never sought to alienate individuals with values to offer to the progress of rational ideas; Barnes, however, does not seem to be interested in cultivating anything; his sole purpose on this forum seems to be to actualize a snobbish contempt deep-rooted in delusion. I hereby withdraw all moral sanction from the rantings of Mr. Barnes and will continue to demonstrate such a withdrawal unless he should change his ways and present me with an extensive apology (which is doubtful).

I have, by the way, read this article and enjoyed the presentation. Commendable work, Mr. Perigo.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 16

Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 7:24pm

Mr Stolyarov:
>It seems that Mr. Barnes has an odd, vicious, and irrational vendetta against me, not merely insulting me in the boards pertaining to my own article, but spilling this (gratuitously, I must add) onto other boards as well.

Well, it seemed you were having a touch of the "Ecce Homo"s yourself, with your references to the "puny minds" of the masses that you were apparently so superior to. Yet your grasp of the facts of your own case was negligible. It seems you can dish criticism out, but can't take it. Frankly, I think by pointing out that you need to pick your game up, I've done you a favour; and you should look to articles like this to see how this sort of reading and criticism is done.

>This, to me, seems not like the behavior of an Objectivist, but of a whiny, insult-hurling infant whose petty feelings were hurt when I referred to the Beatles as the beginning of an Orwellian downward spiral in popular culture.....This looks all too much like hatred of the good to me.

I'm not an Objectivist, and I'm not even much of a Beatles fan. But what I really hate is not the good, but THE BAD. I think you're probably quite talented, but that in itself is not enough. In fact, if you're relying on everyone yelling 20-Atlas-Points-For-Gryffindor! every time you open your mouth, you're in trouble. The point is not to impress your friends, but to GET IT RIGHT - so it will impress, no matter who's reading it.

In fact, it was a little depressing reading the thread following what is probably the most serious piece of writing currently on the site, only to find a whole bunch of "Mary had a little Lamb" type comments. Only Mr Sciabarra had anything intelligent to say. I chipped in because I felt *someone* needed to reply in kind.

If anyone wants to compare the influence of Nietzche on Rand even in the most obvious way - in her heroes - I'm happy to start the ball rolling. I'd start with looking at other writers who came to similar conclusions, like Shaw with "Man and Superman" and look at the critical differences.

But on the other hand, if you just want to bitch, point-score, or have an attack of the Victorian vapours just cos you catch some flak, stick to Iraq or something, and I won't waste my time.

- Daniel

Post 17

Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 9:43pm

Daniel,

You had your fun on Stolyarov's article thread, and you're free to continue on that thread. But I don't want you polluting other threads with it, merely because you can find some excuse to put in an attack. We already had our fill of people who get upset on one topic and hijack every thread to talk about it. I don't want any more.

Post 18

Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 9:47pm

Ok Mr Stolyarov, tell you what:

I'll admit it was unnecessary to chip you in passing. It was an offhand remark, and reconsidering it, I'm sure I made the point strongly enough in my other posts.

So I'll apologise for it. I don't run vendettas. Life's too short.

- Daniel

Post 19

Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 9:05am