Phil Donahue' 2 Interviews of Rand

After taking Andrew Bissell's advice on where to find more value in the world (thanks Andrew!) -- I purchased Stossel's Greed and the Donahue Interviews of Rand. I've just watched the Rand interviews and have 2 things to note -- things which stood out, for me:

1-Rand's answer to an audience member's question of self-evaluation via reference to the standard of moral perfection

2-Phil Donahue's frequent holding of Rand's hand (in the friendly, not patronizing, sense)

1-When Rand was asked if -- after her having discovered many final answers in life, answers which destroyed the questions -- if she considered herself morally perfect, her answer shocked me. She said that she doesn't judge herself by that method (utilizing a standard of perfection, and measuring your distance away from it, if any such distance exists).

She said that she judges herself on an integrity to her discovered ideas and principles (by whether she 'practices what she preaches' -- so to speak). Big Question: What does this say of RandRoid'ers, who use the word "perfection" like a battering stick, instead of a yardstick? It appears obvious that Rand was already keenly aware of how the "p" word could be so misused (RandRoid'ers take note, you've misused her ideas!).

That said, I am (still) planning to write an article entitled: The Mountain of Moral Perfection -- where, by analogy to individuals climbing up a mountain, I analyze the dynamics of individual growth and moral progress. It has to do with an active, progressive shedding of errors and outgrowing of previous limitations.

2-Also, I have always thought of Donahue as a staunch liberal (the really bad kind). Yet, you should see the friendly respect that this man gives Rand! He held her hand (in a non-patronizing way) very often. It was like a sanction or a validation -- at least a kind of comradeship (for lack of a better term!). Big Question: What the heck, folks? What's up with that? Analyze that! What was his motivation? What value did he aim action at? Was it a ploy to show the world that Rand is a person, too? Does Donahue actually AGREE with Objectivism?

Comments are welcomed.

Ed

Post 1

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:25am

Given what I know about Donahue, I too was shocked by the level of respect and even admiration he showed Ayn. It leads me to conclude that even leftists like him encountered a warm and fascinating human being, as long as they treated her with the respect she demanded and deserved.

Post 2

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:27am

And, if anyone thinks that this hand-holding business can be 'shrugged' of as unimportant, here is a weak analogy that immediately conjures up the idea of its relevance:

Picture Rand holding Stalin's hand during a debate!

Ed
[talk about a metaphysical impossibility!]

Post 3

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:29am

Ed his motive was very simple, that is : I love you but I can't .
No balls!

Post 4

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:33am

Many people are leftist just because is convenient to be so!
In Italy in order to get a decent job you must be a leftist.
No way around.

Post 5

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:38am

Could even Phil have possibly been intellectually intimidated by Ayn? There's no way he would have been able to intellectually bully Ayn.

Post 6

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:40am

Thanks for the comments, Andrew (our posts crossed!) and Ciro!

Would anyone care to tackle the issue of Rand choosing not to think of morality in terms of being perfect (or not perfect)?

Ed

Post 7

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 11:50am

That interview is from the seventies and neither of the two were spring chickens! Holding hands like that is a vestige of bygone times, long gone by the time we were born.

Would anyone care to tackle the issue of Rand choosing not to think of morality in terms of being perfect (or not perfect)?

For what it's worth perfection is a road, not a destination. So, I don't mind people identifying themselves as perfect. But this is a linguistic argument.

Post 8

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 12:02pm

I saw Rand on the Donahue show when I was 9 years old. She struck a nerve with me even then. My sense was that this lady knew things that the others did not. Important things. She seemed incredibly strange; like a character from a book. It gives me the shivers to think about how influential that was.

Post 9

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 12:05pm

I don't believe in perfection though I'm open to hear your definitions. My motto: Seek excellence in all things; perfection in none.

Post 10

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 12:12pm

If we believe in perfection we must believe that there is a final end! God!

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 10/04, 12:37pm)

Post 11

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 12:19pm

I believe the "perfection" issue has roots in Platonism and continues through religion that holds perfection above this earth or any of its inhabitants. Oddly, I've found that anti-Randroiders use this term against Rand's admirers, and they claim that anyone who defends her is somehow claiming she was "perfect" which automatically means something that is impossible to any human being. Thus, anyone who defends Rand's integrity is called a Randroid who worships an impossible goddess of moral "perfection." Of course, this otherworldy definition that has been built-in to the word "perfection" renders it useless here on earth and even holds the earth and all of its inhabitants up to a diaphanous standard that cannot be measured up to by definition.

So, rather than trying to rescue the word "perfection" from Platonists in order to give it an achievable meaning, an even more difficult task than rescuing the word "selfish" from the altruists, it is easier, for conversational purposes, to reject that whole Platonic pinata and what it contains and focus on what would be a this-worldly way of thinking of the issue: integrity.

As Rand pointed out, it is impossible to have integrity as a Christian since it requires total self-sacrifice. To the degree one acts on his own behalf to stay alive, one is less than perfect. To have integrity as an Objectivist is quite possible on this Earth, however, since Rand's philosophy does not build-in impossible standards or selfless goals for human beings.

Post 12

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 12:22pm

Oh Lord it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way...

For what it's worth perfection is a road, not a destination

If we believe in perfection we believe in to an end!

Dispute me will you?

Life is a process, so the perfect life is a process. It is the process of falling down 9 times and picking yourself up 10 times. That is all we know of perfection and all we need to know.

Post 13

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 12:41pm

Yes Casey that's what I wanted to say!
Shit why English is not perfect!

Post 14

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 2:10pm

Hilarious, I just posted something about this in the "pets" thread. To quote myself:

I almost feel sorry for 'droids. Rand was a novelist/philosopher, not a god or seer by any means. Her modernization of Aristotelian principles are phenomenal, but to have her views be the definitive word on anything outside of philosophy is silly. Her smoking would be a great example of this. I think what most forget is that she is ultimately employing Aristotle's concept of essence in that she herself said that her heroes were the ideal, not necessarily the real.

On a daily basis humans are in contacts with thousands of different facets of one another. To try to reduce these facets to axiomatic ideals would be ridiculous. The goal of objectivism is to have a solid baseline on which to understand reality. Concepts that negate happiness, as a lot of strict moral absolutists use, are themselves irrational.

The goal of philosophy has always been happiness. Rand built on Aristotles ethics, sans mysticism.

To live in reality, and live the good life...that is happiness. I believe that was the point that Rand attempted to get across but that people just couldn't get.

Post 15

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 2:14pm

Yup...

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 2:47pm

I take perfection to mean not so much as flawlessness, but completion.

The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting; entire development; consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence; the highest attainable state or degree of excellence; maturity; as, perfection in an art, in a science, or in a system; perfection in form or degree; fruits in perfection.

Post 17

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 6:18pm

Personally, I think lots of things are perfect, and I use the word "perfect" all the time.

"Eight o'clock's too early for me."

"How about 9:00?"

"Perfect."

Interestlingy, when James Valliant and I were kids we had this discussion. Is perfection possible? We finally decided it was not only possible but that the ashtray carved in stone on the coffee table was, in fact, perfect. It did what it was supposed to and the shape, a hemisphere carved into a square block, was without any flaw apparent to human senses. It was perfect. Someone could look at the surface of the polished stone in a microscope and see that it was "flawed" -- but a God's eye view is irrelevant to the meaningfulness of the word to us. Man is the measure of all things, not some hypothetical god consciousness that is outside any actual range of consciousness. It need only be suited to its purpose and unblemished in its execution to the senses of mankind to be "perfect" if the word had any meaning that was salvagable from mystics. Would it be perfect for very tiny people, who could not lift it? No, so obviously perfection is relevant to a context. Was it perfect in the context it needs to be? Yes!

Since then, I've seen a lot of perfection on this Earth ranging from the simplicity of an ashtray or a spoon, to the enormous complexity of a sculpture or a symphony. My new silver 2006 Ford Mustang is perfect, that's for damn sure.

Post 18

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 7:04pm

Talton,-

To live in reality, and live the good life...that is happiness. I believe that was the point that Rand attempted to get across but that people just couldn't get.

Sounds perfect!

On a daily basis humans are in contacts with thousands of different facets of one another. To try to reduce these facets to axiomatic ideals would be ridiculous

Not it isn't. Try me.

It need only be suited to its purpose and unblemished in its execution to the senses of mankind to be "perfect" if the word had any meaning that was salvagable from mystics

Yes! Who else is with me on this?

I'd like to see those people who are adverse to a perfect life to define a perfect life for us so we can see what their boggle is.

I take perfection to mean not so much as flawlessness, but completion

Sounds like you've got to be dead before you can examine your life...

Is the perfect river the river run dry?
Life is a process- the perfect life is not an end state.

Post 19

Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 7:47pm