Birth of Objectivism - Robert Hessen on Ayn Rand (excerpt)

[igorkrupitsky]

"It is important that as few people as possible should think about morality, consequently it is very important that morality should not become interesting!" - Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil, 228)

[hatchbx]

An objectivist society? Your perversely fiendish and backward "philosophy" is ready for the ash heap of history.

[SpazzzDog]

I found Rand's anti-compassion in Atlas sickening. Even more sickening was her portrayal of compassion as limp, weak, and inadvertently tyrannical with characters like J. Taggard, Mouch, Ferris, Stadler, etc. The compassionate drive to relieve other people of their suffering simply because they're suffering is a honorable value. Younger generations abandoning that altruistic compassion for Rand's ethics is chilling in its bleakness.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

I've always found overly-compassionate people as somewhat revolting. Their unrelenting officiousness is something that I can't bear.

As for your appraisal of Rand's views on compassion, I can only say that you seem to have misconstrued them. Ayn Rand didn't advocate the cessation of compassion: she merely said that compassion should not be the result of force, and that if one is to be compassionate, they should be compassionate and helpful to those who merit it, not just any miscreant.

[SpazzzDog]

haha yeah, I'm overly compassionate. I'm compassionate on the level of Karen Armstrong and her Charter for Compassion (I suggest you check it out). Compassion essentially means "feeling for the other". The most difficult part people have with understanding compassion is how it applies to the worst. Dethroning one's ego and understanding life from another's perspective doesn't condone bad or evil actions, but it does allow one to understand another so we can begin to heal our wounds.

[Bigturns33]

Compassion in its true form is self interest related. People have a sense of self esteem themeselves when they give compassion. People deep down say, "Wow look what im doing for him" Even if they dont the pleasure they get out of it is of self interest. It makes them feel good. As Xnumb said below, rand was not for "FORCED COMPASSION" or FORCED DISTRIBUTION of wealth which is in Atlas as you have read.

[SpazzzDog]

I've heard that before, but it's rather moot because that's usually not the motivation. It's more like a good side affect of being altruistic.

Rand was against compassion when done for the "unearned". So that means helping someone you don't even know, a complete stranger, just for the sake of helping the person. You know, being altruistic.

[ZEITGEISTism]

NOT TRUE you are twisting or misunderstanding what she meant which in a nutshell is Dont help someone if you dont mean it it doesnt help you or the person your helping it offends both parties in different ways You patronise the other and your insincerity (which they feel) makes you a hypocrite She didnt mean it in the context that if you found a stranger bleeding to death on the road you shouldnt stop and help them

[PixelPariah]

@SpazzzDog

Chilling for you perhaps. But not chilling for them. Which is the point.

[Phatman956]

@SpazzzDog Is this compassion you speak of the kind that causes parents to support their kids well into their 40's? That gives a homeless drunk a dollar to buy beer? That pays people to reprodce when they can't feed the kids they already have? You're not an altruist you're an enabler. Taxes are altruism at the point of a gun

[SpazzzDog]

@Phatman956 So what if adults are supported in to their forties, that's their family's business. It's better someone gives a homeless drunk a dollar to feed his addiction so he doesn't need to steal for it. Even if we don't support single moms who can't feed her kids, that doesn't necessarily mean she'll think it through first. You can't force people to be responsible.

[Phatman956]

@SpazzzDog Yes you can force people to be responsible. In fact where your children are concerned it's your responsibility to make sure they can survive without you. and your other solution.... give me money so I won't steal from you is sickening. Your last point is a lie. If the state told women you can have as many kid as you want but we're only giving you benefits for two, you would see a lot of tubes getting tied

[SpazzzDog]

@Phatman956 You can't force people to be responsible. A person needs to have the values of responsibility instilled in his value system, otherwise he'll get away with what ever he can. Are you an alcoholic? Drug addicts are driven by a drive to get their fix no matter what. They're not motivated by the same things everyone else is. There will always be short sighted women who will have children they can't afford no matter what the laws are.

[Phatman956]

@SpazzzDog You.re making my point for me. Enabling this behavior is NOT compassion.

[SpazzzDog]

@Phatman956 The Objectivist alternative is to let the addict steal to feed his addiction, or to let the short sighted mother have babies she can't afford and do nothing to mitigate or lessen the impact that has on society.

[Phatman956]

@SpazzzDog Solution for addicts who steal..... prison not paying them not to steal. Solution for women who won't support their children.... orphanages not paying them to have more children

[SpazzzDog]

@Phatman956 Prison doesn't cure addiction. If orphanages is a superior solution to supporting the mothers, then create more orphanages. But the State will likely pay for them anyway.

[TimeWarp66]

@SpazzzDog

I agree with your comment to some extent. Compassion is a virtue and should never be scorned as a sign of weakness or irrationality, but at the same time, the government should not point a gun to your head and force you to be compassionate.

[SpazzzDog]

@TimeWarp66 It should never get to the point where compassion needs to be enforced.

[TimeWarp66]

@SpazzzDog

Than what were you arguing to begin with?

[SpazzzDog]

@TimeWarp66 That people should be compassionate and altruistic on their own volition.

[TimeWarp66]

@SpazzzDog

Never equate compassion and benevolence with altruism. 

[SpazzzDog]

@TimeWarp66 How about you just talk like everyone else without expecting everyone else to conform to Objectivist nomenclature?

[grantsinmypants2]

The irony is that it's the charge of "sterility" most often levied against Rand's works of fiction by her critics. Lacking any credible refutations against the content of them, all they can do is attack the long bits of philosophy as "preachy."

I suppose to them, just as philosophy must be sterile, good art must be senseless and can never seriously engage the mind. If you want to know how senseless philosophies affect people in the real world, observe what they judge as acceptable art.

[LuqmanNaq]

Or perhaps they are people who prefer more subtle and poetic presentations of 'philosophy' in their art.

[grantsinmypants2]

"Subtle" and "poetic" are just euphamisms for incoherent.

[LuqmanNaq]

Nope. Ever read Shakesphere? His works are a prime example. Take John Hospers encounters with Rand... When she said to him 'good premises' as her farewell message implicit in it was 'I deeply respect your intellect and value our friendship and discussions, and I wish you well', it was a subtle and poetic way of conveying that to him, and it touched him deeply, probably far deeper than she would have if she would have said it explicitly.

[grantsinmypants2]

I didn't say that it couldn't ever be that way. I said that frequently when it's not at all, it's because, despite appearances to the contrary, there isn't anything being said.

Rand's critics, when they criticize her style, are only doing so because her substance proves that they're without any. They're practically admitting it when they do so.

The criticism amounts to "yeah, well, you may be right, we don't have any substance - but at least we have style."

[p0rq]

I know exactly how he feels.