RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Another Ayn Rand thread at Reason.com

Thursday
November 5, 2009

Another Ayn Rand thread at Reason.com by Jim Henshaw

On yet another Ayn Rand thread over at Reason.com's Hit and Run (presumably to cross-promote the upcoming Ayn Rand series at Reason.TV), one of the Reason staffers (Tim Cavanaugh) who is reading the Fountainhead for the first time (!) posed two question about the book that I (posting as "prolefeed") and two other peopl... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (19 messages)

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 6:57pm

I wouldn't attempt to explain the basics of Rand, Objectivism, or the Fountainhead to someone on the staff of Reason magazine - if the editors choose to put a dummy in that position, you are wasting your time to try to correct them.

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 9:25pm

Well, the current editors of Reason are not Objectivists but no enemies of Objectivism either. It's more complicated than that--they are trying to keep alive discussions of the free society by casting them in language and symbols that sit well with today's young people.
But this is odd: "Ayn's point is that free and creative people can choose to refuse to do business with people they loathe, people who don't appreciate their work." It isn't that they can but they are often justified in doing so, indeed at times ought to do so. It also depends on whether they loath them as a matter of having moral contempt for them or merely find them odious for some non-moral reasons. Generally, some of these cryptic comments do not do justice to Rand's ideas, not even her art. They amount to rushing to judgment where a good deal of preparation would be needed. (Also referring to Ayn Rand as "Ayn" seems to me deliberately or at least carelessly demeaning--or was she your buddy? I don't even appreciate people who I don't know me calling me by my first name. That, I think, needs to be earned. But perhaps elementary courtesy is passe now! )
BTW, I was one of the founders of Reason, its editor for two years and a Senior Fellow at the Reason Foundation for about a decade.
(Edited by Machan on 11/05, 9:27pm)

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 10:27pm

Dr. Machan,

I was a regular reader of Reason for a number of years. I was sad when I found myself losing interest in a magazine that I'd previously looked forward to reading.

I think you are right about it being an 'attitude' kind of thing - being "carelessly demeaning" - not out of spite but as a way of strutting about showing off in a way that says, "I'm so cool, I don't have to take things seriously." There seems to be a peer-pressure driven thing where being 'cool' in that sense is more important than ideas. It seems very narcissistic to me.

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 2:59am

Few organizations retain the vision of their founders--just look at America. Sadly the board of the Reason Foundation had too many loose cannons, folks who didn't much care for fundamentals and only worried about survival. To succeed at both survival and integrity is a very difficult achievement when the vast majority of costumers are basically interested only in cool!

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 5:13am

To succeed at both survival and integrity is a very difficult achievement when the vast majority of costumers are basically interested only in cool!

... which is ironically related to the point about the architect (Roark) defending his integrity against envious egalitarians, etc.

One wonders whether these guys at Reason, finding themselves -- findings themselves personally and in actuality -- on the wrong side of the issue depicted the Fountainhead, are merely lashing out in lazy, self-preservation and obfuscatory rationalization.

Ed

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 8:40am

"Working with statists" isn't the central issue in The Fountainhead. AR never said that someone should deal only with people who embrace free-market capitalism in order to earn a living. In today's culture, that would be impossible.

Her point is that when you betray your integrity, independent judgment, and self-esteem in a normal metaphysical (not life-threatening) context in order to get something else, you're objectively NOT trading a lesser value for a higher value. You're doing the opposite, which is in fact immoral.

Compromise with others is perfectly moral--such as when a buyer and seller negotiate the price of something--as long as it doesn't mean the betrayal of basic philosophical values. That isn't a "compromise"; it's a surrender. See AR's essay "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Finally, those who like the notion of free markets but hate the notion of the absolute moral values that support them, AR's fiction will be somewhat frustrating.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 11/06, 8:42am)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 11/06, 9:11am)

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 1:00pm

Tibor -- I used "Ayn" instead of "Ayn Rand" for the sake of brevity, and to avoid redundancy. It's not like there's anyone else of note out there with the first name "Ayn".

Whereas if you use "Rand" on a thread on Reason.com, you run the risk of momentarily causing some ambiguity about whether you are referring to "Rand Paul", who is Ron Paul's son (and obviously named after Ayn Rand) and a fairly well-known name on that website.

But I do see your point about it being perceived as discourteous, and will try to remember to use Ayn Rand's full name from now on.

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 11/06, 1:01pm)

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 1:38pm

Re Jon's post #5:

I can see how for someone who highly values their artistic integrity -- someone like Ayn Rand or Howard Roark -- refusing to compromise or change their vision would be refusing to sacrifice a higher value for a lower value.

Arguably, both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged could have benefited from a talented editor fixing some of the technical problems with her writing -- the long, unbelievable blocks of exposition and whatnot -- without touching the wonderful plot and the ideas and philosophy contained therein. But, as any editor who had actually read The Fountainhead or knew Ayn Rand's character had to know, anyone making such suggestions would have been indignantly rejected, and a new, more compliant publisher sought who would publish the novels as is, not a word altered. You either published her novels as is, or not at all.

Arguably, Ayn Rand's extreme individualism and ego prevented her from having the epiphany that despite her immense talent, there were some holes in her skills that other talented people with complementary skill sets could have supplemented to fine-tune her vision, make it even better and more fully realized.

But, the force and power of her novels prevailed over these flaws and allowed them to become such commercial successes.

My point is, for the rest of us mortals lacking such incredible talent, it is often necessary to work with people who we dislike or even loathe to earn a living. And, if we value things other than our work highly enough -- the ability to feed and clothe and house our families, for instance -- it is no sacrifice to make these compromises, if the result is you are maximizing what you value even after taking into account the effect of the compromises.

And that is what puzzled me at first when reading The Fountainhead, and why Howard Roark's actions didn't make sense to me at first. It was only after spending time on this site that I realized that the point was that, for Howard Roark, it would have been a sacrifice of what he valued to alter his work, and it would have similarly been a sacrifice of what Ayn Rand valued to let someone else change even a letter of her novels.

And so, even though I hold a somewhat different set of values than Roark or Rand, I can now appreciate why they did what they did as being consistent with Objectivist principles, while realizing that other Objectivists with different values do not have to follow such an unwavering determination to compromise because for them, such unwavering action would be a sacrifice.

That is not to say that there are never instances where I would unwaveringly refuse to budge -- some things I value enough to make such a stand -- just that each of us has to pick their battles based on their personal values, and I would pick different battles than Ayn Rand or Howard Roark.

For example, when I was working at the state legislature for a nice guy who was all about compromising, endless and exasperating compromises, I finally reached such a stand. I was writing letters to the editor criticizing some of the more egregious actions of the most loathsome politicians, and getting stronger and stronger hints that my boss disapproved of the fallout of those letters, until finally he directly told me, exasperated, that he had been politely ordering me to stop -- so politely that I didn't even realize these were orders rather than genial comments. So we had a confrontation where I said I was not going to give up my First Amendment right to excoriate arseholes, not for him or for anyone else, and that he could either fire me or deal with the letters, but the letters weren't going to stop, and he didn't get to see them or edit them beforehand.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 11/06, 1:44pm)

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 1:48pm

I think part of the problem is that Ayn Rand & Co. tend to generalize their own admiration for Rand's artistry so much that they cannot see that it is not an artistry for everyone. Indeed, few works of art are universally excellent, suitable for all personalities, times, circumstances, etc. Rand didn't acknowledge that in art as in ethics context matters. Just as there a many type of equally beautiful women, hairdos, buildings, scenery in nature and city, so there are many types of equally beautiful works of art, including fiction. Some will be baffled how others can admire one novel which for them does very little. This is not subjectivism but contextualism--quite Randian, actually.

Friday, November 6, 2009 - 3:08pm

No huge deal but I am concerned that it may suggest the author's disdain for her.

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 4:10pm

Jim, your post was very long and wordy, but I'll respond to the essence of what you said.

The lesson of the Fountainhead isn't merely applicable to people of great artistic vision or incredible talent. Most people aren't in that category. The lesson is applicable to anyone, regardless of the extent of their talent. That lesson is: Don't betray yourself. Don't contradict your own rational values. Don't surrender your own judgment just to get along. This is the very meaning of "egoism" in Ayn Rand's conception. Obviously, it's not always easy.

Of course, that doesn't imply that you should never work with anyone you personally dislike. That's not the issue.

Finally, if someone works at a state legislature and writes letters excoriating the politicians, that person shouldn't be working there. I'm sure they deserved to be criticized, but that's very bizarre.

Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 4:15pm

A local libertarian atheist, Jane McLaughlin, who ran a print shop through the '80's was approached occasionally by preachers or other people from churches who wanted her to print and/or layout/typeset Sunday service brochures, etc. She was troubled by the idea of doing anything to promote what she considered a fraud, or a mistake at best.

So, finally she came up with a philosophically correct answer.

Charge them until she felt better about it.

BTW, I quit "Liberty" because of the incessant, silly, stupid Rand-baiting, and "Reason" because they cut the Want-Ad section, which I generally found the most interesting and entertaining part of the magazine, and, with its demise, eliminating one of the very few broad-based ways to connect with other libertarians.

THE problem with the libertarian movement is the LP, in practice, but, more broadly, a strict PC sectarianism that forbids discussion outside their little box. Note that development of new ideas, broader abstractions that could deal with issues such as original property claims or children's rights, and strategic direction - how to get from here to Galt's Gulch - had come to a virtual standstill by the mid-70's. Surprisingly, they have managed to hold on to most of their original core principles, in the main. But as far as outreach and growth, they are moribund.

Of course, they have a similar problem to that of atheists. What is atheism but a rejection of the belief in any God? It doesn't, by itself, offer any prescription as to how to live ones life. Libertarianism, similarly, has reduced itself to an "anti" political force that offers no practical agenda that any real political base can buy into.

The reason for this paralysis is that promoting a real vision and agenda for action is inherently contradictory to attracting more warm bodies (e.g., votes). As soon as you commit to a particular binding strategic vision, with the implications of a choice of philosophical positions and all the baggage that entails, you just eliminated all the people holding radically different philosophies, who were willing to agree to the "libertarian principle" of non-aggression, but disagreed about the existence of God, whether abortion is murder, whether radical subjectivism (e.g., Bob Lefevre) or objectivism, etc., etc.

BTW, I was saying and was even quoted in print for saying or writing virtually the exact thing in 1976, which just illustrates how bad things are.

Monday, November 9, 2009 - 8:52am

Phil: "So, finally she came up with a philosophically correct answer.

Charge them until she felt better about it."

Can you briefly explain why that's the "philosophically correct" answer? Are you implying that if you owned a printer and someone wanted to pay you to print a KKK brochure, or a Nazi brochure, or a NAMBLA brochure, it would be moral to do that depending on how much you charged them? Clearly, the other party is still benefiting from the deal, or they wouldn't pay the price.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 11/09, 9:50am)

Monday, November 9, 2009 - 10:31am

Please remind me of what "moral" means in your discussions.   Thanks.

I said "no" many times in my former Electromagnetic Engineering career costing me in different ways.   But I received awards also and now that I am in my declining years those times I said "no" are some of my best memories of a life well lived.

My cousin who is about my age and worked for GE, while I worked for Boeing, enjoy getting together and telling each other stories of when we told The Man:

"NO!" I will not do that.

Monday, November 9, 2009 - 10:59am

Some will be baffled how others can admire one novel which for them does very little. This is not subjectivism but contextualism--quite Randian, actually.

Not sure how you're reaching this conclusion. The reason why some people admire a novel and others don't is because their subjective valuation of the novel varies. Similarly for appreciation of feminine beauty -- a woman I find beautiful you may not find attractive at all, because our subjective tastes differ. While the context we each view them may contribute to that valuation, context isn't everything. For example, a gay man will be unlikely to be sexually attracted to a woman regardless of the context he views her.

Monday, November 9, 2009 - 11:18am

Finally, if someone works at a state legislature and writes letters excoriating the politicians, that person shouldn't be working there. I'm sure they deserved to be criticized, but that's very bizarre.

Jon, perhaps you could explain your logic here, because I don't understand it.

Are you saying that one should never write letters criticizing anyone at an organization you work for?

Because politicians write letters to the editor criticizing their political opponents all the same. Are you saying that that is wrong?

Or are you objecting to a subordinate criticizing someone who outranks them in an organization, even if they work for an entirely different department?

If so, why do you feel it is OK for someone who outranks someone else in the organization to criticize them in print, but not vice-versa?

Or do you feel that one should never act as a whistleblower if one is aware of misdeeds in an organization, unless one first resigns their job there?
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 11/09, 11:30am)

Monday, November 9, 2009 - 1:00pm

Dale: "Please remind me of what "moral" means in your discussions."

Moral means consistent with rational egoism, a set of values/virtues based on the nature of reality and of man qua man. See Ayn Rand's writings for full explanation and justification. You can read brief excerpts from those writings on www.aynrandlexicon.com.

Jim: "Are you saying that one should never write letters criticizing anyone at an organization you work for?"

I'm saying that if I wrote pieces for publication excoriating people in my organization who outrank me, I'd expect to be reprimanded or fired, depending on the context.

"Because politicians write letters to the editor criticizing their political opponents all the same. Are you saying that that is wrong?"

I'm saying you being employed at a state legislature and publicly criticizing the politicians there isn't the same context as politicians publicly criticizing their political opponents.

"Or are you objecting to a subordinate criticizing someone who outranks them in an organization, even if they work for an entirely different department?"

I'm objecting to not doing that privately and tactfully, if that criticism is valid and necessary.

"If so, why do you feel it is OK for someone who outranks someone else in the organization to criticize them in print, but not vice-versa?"

I don't.

"Or do you feel that one should never act as a whistleblower if one is aware of misdeeds in an organization, unless one first resigns their job there?"

It depends on what you mean by "whistleblower" and "misdeeds." If someone has evidence that a person/group within his own organization/institution has committed or is committing a genuine crime (e.g., embezzlement), then I think he should report it to someone else--a manager, a board, or perhaps the police--depending on the context.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 11/09, 1:06pm)

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 7:58am

Jon -- dunno if it works the same way on the Mainland, but here in Hawaii one often sees letters to the editor from subordinates working at the state Capitol attacking the political opponents of their boss. Of course, the people writing the letters don't identify themselves as being employees of the legislature -- they're written in the context of private individuals -- and unless you worked in the legislature, you likely wouldn't realize who the writer was.

And, it wasn't like my boss had no idea I would write such letters when he hired me for six consecutive legislative sessions, and after I had been published for the hundredth time or so, and after he had praised me repeatedly for letters that advanced his caucus' agenda. And in fact, my boss had on several occasions asked me to write some letters for him, or in my name but on his behalf, but using much kinder and gentler language than was my wont when publishing under my own name.

His problem was that the target of several of the letters complained personally to him, asking him to muzzle me because it was proving politically embarrassing to have his shenanigans and hypocrisy exposed, in particular because his reelection campaign was coming up and he was in trouble. (And in fact he lost his seat after a particularly damaging incident involving a DUI charge where he tried to weasel out of it with some spectacularly inept lies, obviously not run through his lawyer.)

So, given this context, and given that I offered to resign rather than give up my First Amendment rights for such a loathsome human being as the person I was writing about, and given that my boss turned down my offer to resign -- do you still think that what I did was inappropriate?

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 1:49pm

Jim, I think that situation sounds bizarre, which was my original comment. Since I said that initially, I thought I should answer your subsequent questions as well. But I don't want to untangle all the facts here and discuss it more, because it's not that interesting to me.