trc@houca.UUCP (10/11/83)
Response to Jeff Myers, RE My first Rand and Against Individualism:
Fascinating book reviews, Jeff - you seem to have skimmed the introduction
to the Fountainhead, and listened to a second-hand account of Atlas Shrugged.
>From this in-depth study, you conclude that Ayn Rand is an elistist with
nothing but contempt for the "vulgar masses", and a fascist that believes that
most everyone is a parasite upon a few supermen. Maybe next you should
re-skim BF Skinner and see exactly what it is that he advocates - which is
essentially a super-big-brother, all-encompassing "scientific"-/psychological
state - in which, presumably, the psychologists decide who is to behave in
what fashion.
Atlas Shrugged may be a bit longer than your average comic book, but it
has at least a fraction more content and story as well.
As for the person born on a desert island - *perhaps* most persons wouldnt
develop tools. So what? This is supposed to be prove that there is no
person who could? In fact, Rand's "supermen" are people that have, through
a combination of nature, nurture and thought, become able to break free of
the common-place and to go beyond it. How do you suppose that new ideas
and discoveries are made? By the "vulgar masses"? How do you suppose that
new industries get started? By committee? Rand's point is that those people
who deserve to be most admired, are the most despised, and that this is a
symptom of anti-individualism arising from altruism. That is why she wrote
the Fountainhead for them - to tell them the reasons that they are correct
for being the way that they are, and that those that despise them are wrong.
Her intention, I think, was to explicitly show them the ethical foundation
upon which their morality rests, while exposing that lack in their opponents.
The legacy of civilization, - its knowledge - is available to most anyone in
the West. Why is it that those that make particularly good use of it should
owe those that do not do so? Perhaps the great author owes something to the
invention of the electric light - but does he owe it to the masses, or Edison?
The US government answered this question - by providing for patents granted to
the inventor, and copyrights to authors. The industrialist certainly owes his
employees something for their labor - and he covers that debt when he pays
them their agreed upon salary and benefits.
Extreme individualism means standing on your own two feet and supporting
yourself by being productive - not by laying back and surviving off of the
efforts of others. The latter is parasitism - which is usually a form of
lying to oneself, denying that obvious truth that productivity is required
for the support of one's life. The parasite is the antithesis of the
individualist - the individualist seeks to survive on his own efforts,
while the parasite seeks to survive only by the effors of others. To be
an "extreme individualist" does not mean that one cannot participate in
society - what is society, after all, but a large number of individuals
interacting. The individualist is one that believes that the only proper
method of interaction is *trading* - both sides giving and both sides
receiving in a manner that both can gain values.
As for "speci-ism" (a form of altruism that allows sacrifice of individuals
for the sake of the species) why should an individual care about the
survival of his species if that species chooses to sacrifice him for its
survival? Why is it that the survival of the species would not be best
served by the attempt of its individual members to live primarily by their
own efforts, rather than depend upon the efforts of other members of the
species?
I might apologize for the "flaming" and sarcastic nature of this note, but
I think that your statements entirely justify what I have said. So I wont.
Tom Craver
houca!trcmyers@uwvax.ARPA (Jeff Myers) (10/13/83)
Response to trc on my brief Rand review: (my tidbits indented)
Fascinating book reviews, Jeff - you seem to have skimmed the introduction
to the Fountainhead, and listened to a second-hand account of Atlas Shrugged.
>From this in-depth study, you conclude that Ayn Rand is an elistist with
nothing but contempt for the "vulgar masses", and a fascist that believes that
most everyone is a parasite upon a few supermen. Maybe next you should
re-skim BF Skinner and see exactly what it is that he advocates - which is
essentially a super-big-brother, all-encompassing "scientific"-/psychological
state - in which, presumably, the psychologists decide who is to behave in
what fashion.
Thank you... I couldn't have summed up Rand better myself. How do you know
that I heard a second-hand account of *Atlas Shrugged*? Never mentioned it
in my article. What does Skinner have to do with anything (though I
thoroughly disagree with positivist, behaiviorist social science, too)?
In fact, Rand's "supermen" are people that have, through
a combination of nature, nurture and thought, become able to break free of
the common-place and to go beyond it. How do you suppose that new ideas
and discoveries are made? By the "vulgar masses"? How do you suppose that
new industries get started? By committee? Rand's point is that those people
who deserve to be most admired, are the most despised, and that this is a
symptom of anti-individualism arising from altruism. That is why she wrote
the Fountainhead for them - to tell them the reasons that they are correct
for being the way that they are, and that those that despise them are wrong.
Her intention, I think, was to explicitly show them the ethical foundation
upon which their morality rests, while exposing that lack in their opponents.
It is not only nature, nurture, and thought which enable our comic-book
heroes to go beyond the commonplace... the toil of the everyday Shmo
generates the surplus which gives them the leisure to think their
super thoughts (and we two, also). Sure, going beyond the commonplace
is extremely important for the betterment of all our lives. But Rand is
mistaken in believing that the "supermen" are despised for excelling;
they are despised for becoming jaded and enriched because of their
good fortune.
Extreme individualism means standing on your own two feet and supporting
yourself by being productive - not by laying back and surviving off of the
efforts of others.
Sounds like extreme altruism.
I might apologize for the "flaming" and sarcastic nature of this note, but
I think that your statements entirely justify what I have said. So I wont.
I won't either.
Cheers,
jeff myers@uwiscmike@hpfclk.UUCP (10/21/83)
#R:houca:-40200:hpfclk:8900001:000:170 hpfclk!mike Oct 19 10:21:00 1983 Ah, now we are getting down to the "A is A". A little rationality goes a long way. This could be a poem. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!hpfclk!mike