As Jerome Tuccille once observed, it usually starts with Ayn Rand. In this section from The Fountainhead, she clearly outlines the master plan of all tyrants throughout history, and the parallels to our present situation are ominous, indeed.
“What do you want Ellsworth ?”
“Power, Petey. I want to rule. Like my spiritual predecessors. But I’m luckier than they were. I inherited the fruit of their efforts and I shall be the one who’ll see the great dream made real. I see it all around me today. I recognize it. I don’t like it. I didn’t expect to like it. Enjoyment is not my destiny. I shall find such satisfaction as my capacity permits. I shall rule.”
“Whom…?”
“You. The world. It’s only a matter of discovering the lever. If you learn how to rule one single man’s soul, you can get the rest of mankind. It’s the soul, Peter, the soul. Not whips or swords or fire or guns. That’s why the Caesars, the Attilas, the Napoleons were fools and did not last. We will. The soul, Peter, is that which can’t be ruled. It must be broken. Drive a wedge in, get your fingers on it – and the man is yours. You won’t need a whip – he’ll bring it to you and ask to be whipped. Set him in reverse – and his own mechanism will do your work for you. Use him against himself. Want to know how it’s done? See if I ever lied to you. See if you haven’t heard all this for years, but didn’t want to hear, and the fault is yours, not mine.
There are many ways. Here’s one. Make man feel small. Make him feel guilty. Kill his aspiration and his integrity. That’s difficult. The worst among you gropes for an idol in his own twisted way. Kill integrity by internal corruption. Use it against himself. Direct it towards a goal destructive of all integrity. Preach selflessness. Tell man that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one has ever reached it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don’t you see what you accomplish ? Man realizes that he’s incapable of what he’s accepted as the noblest virtue – and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness. Since the supreme ideal is beyond his grasp, he gives up eventually all ideals, all aspiration, all sense of his personal value. He feels himself obliged to preach what he can’t practice. But one can’t be good halfway or honest approximately. To preserve one’s integrity is a hard battle. Why preserve that which one knows to be corrupt already? His soul gives up its self respect. You’ve got him. He’ll obey. He’ll be glad to obey – because he can’t trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean. That’s one way.
Here’s another. Kill man’s sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognize greatness or to achieve it. Great men can’t be ruled. We don’t want any great men. Don’t deny conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept – and you stop the impetus to effort in men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection. Laugh at Roark and hold Peter Keating as a great architect. You’ve destroyed architecture. Build Lois Cook and you’ve destroyed literature. Hail Ike and you’ve destroyed the theater. Glorify Lancelot Clankey and you’ve destroyed the press. Don’t set out to raze all shrines – you’ll frighten men, Enshrine mediocrity – and the shrines are razed.
Then there’s another way. Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It’s simple. Tell them to laugh at everything. Tell them that a sense of humor is an unlimited virtue. Don’t let anything remain sacred in a man’s soul – and his soul won’t be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man. One doesn’t reverence with a giggle. He’ll obey and he’ll set no limits to obedience – anything goes – nothing is too serious.
Here’s another way. This is most important. Don’t allow men to be happy. Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them what they want. Make them think that the mere thought of a personal desire is evil. Bring them to a state where saying ‘I want’ is no longer a natural right, but a shameful admission. Altruism is of great help in this. Unhappy men will come to you. They’ll need you. They’ll come for consolation, for support, for escape. Nature allows no vacuum. Empty man’s soul – and the space is yours to fill.
I don’t see why you should look so shocked, Peter. This is the oldest one of all. Look back at history. Look at any great system of ethics, from the Orient up. Didn’t they all preach the sacrifice of personal joy ? Under all the complications of verbiage, haven’t they all had a single leitmotif: sacrifice, renunciation, self-denial ? Haven’t you been able to catch their theme song – ‘Give up, give up, give up, give up’ ? Look at the moral atmosphere of today. Everything enjoyable, from cigarettes to sex to ambition to the profit motive, is considered depraved or sinful. Just prove that a thing makes men happy and you’ve damned it. That’s how far we’ve come. We’ve tied happiness to guilt. And we’ve got mankind by the throat.
Throw your first born into a sacrificial furnace – lie on a bed of nails – go into the desert to mortify the flesh – don’t dance – don’t go to the movies on Sunday – don’t try to get rich – don’t smoke – don’t drink. It’s all the same line. The great line. Fools don’t think that taboos of this nature are just nonsense. Something left over, old-fashioned. But there’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly – ask yourself only what it accomplishes. Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men.
Of course, you must dress them up. You must tell people they’ll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don’t have to be too clear about it. Use big vague words. ‘Universal Harmony’ – ‘Eternal Spirit’ – ‘Divine Purpose’ – ‘Nirvana’ – ‘Paradise’ – ‘Racial Supremacy’ – ‘the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’ Internal corruption, Peter. That’s the oldest one of all. The farce has been going on for centuries and men still fall for it.
Yet the test should be so simple: just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice – run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. But if you ever hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that it’s your natural right, that your first duty is to yourself – that will be the man who has nothing to gain from you. But let him come and you’ll scream your empty heads off, howling that he’s a selfish monster. So the racket is safe for many, many centuries.
But here you might have noticed something. I said, ‘It stands to reason’. Do you see ? Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don’t deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don’t say reason is evil – though some have gone that far and with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there’s something above it. What ? You don’t have to be too clear about it either. The field’s inexhaustible. ‘Instinct’ – ‘Feeling’ – ‘Revelation’ – ‘Divine Intuition’ – ‘Dialectic Materialism’. If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn’t make sense – you’re ready for him. You tell him there’s something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe. Suspend reason and you play it deuces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You’ve got him. Can you rule a thinking man ? We don’t want any thinking men.”
Keating had sat down on the floor, by the side of the dresser. He did not want to abandon the dresser; he felt safer, leaning against it.
“Peter, you’ve heard all this. You’ve seen me practicing it for ten years. You see it being practiced all over the world. Why are you disgusted ? You have no right to sit there and stare at me with the virtuous superiority of being shocked. You’re in on it. You’ve taken your share and you’ve got to go along. You’re afraid to see where it’s leading. I’m not. I’ll tell you.
The world of the future. The world I want. A world of obedience and of unity. A world where the thought of each man will not be his own, but an attempt to guess the thought of the next neighbor who’ll have no thought – and so on, Peter, around the globe. Since all must agree with all. A world where no man will hold a desire for himself, but will direct all his efforts to satisfy the desires of his neighbor who’ll have no desires except to satisfy the desires of the next neighbor, who’ll have no desires – around the globe, Peter. Since all must serve all. A world in which man will not work for so innocent an incentive as money, but for that headless monster – prestige. The approval of his fellows – their good opinion – the opinion of men who’ll be allowed to hold no opinion. An octopus, all tentacles and no brain.
Judgement, Peter ! Not judgement, but public polls. An average drawn upon zeroes – since no individuality will be permitted. A world with its motor cut off and a single heart, pumped by hand. My hand – and the hands of a few, a very few other men like me. Those who know what makes you tick – you great, wonderful average, you who have not risen in fury when we called you the average, the little, the common, you who’ve liked and accepted these names. You’ll sit enthroned and enshrined, you, the little people, the absolute ruler to make all past rulers squirm with envy, the absolute, the unlimited, God and Prophet and King combined. Vox populi. The average, the common, the general.
Do you know the proper antonym for Ego ? Bromide, Peter. The rule of the bromide. But even the trite has to be organized by someone at some time. We’ll do the organizing. Vox dei. We’ll enjoy unlimited submission – from men who’ve learned nothing except to submit. We’ll call it ‘to serve’. We’ll give out medals for service. You’ll fall over one another in a scramble to see who can submit better and more. There will be no other distinction to seek. No other form of personal achievement.
Can you see Howard Roark in this picture ? No ? Then don’t waste time on foolish questions. Everything that can’t be ruled, must go. And if freaks persist in being born occasionally, they will not survive beyond their twelfth year. When their brain begins to function, it will feel the pressure and it will explode. The pressure gauged to a vacuum. Do you know the fate of deep-sea creatures brought out to sunlight? So much for future Roarks. The rest of you will smile and obey. Have you noticed that the imbecile always smiles ? Man’s first frown is the first touch of God on his forehead. The touch of thought. But we’ll have neither God nor thought. Only voting by smiles. Automatic levers – all saying yes…
Now if you were a little more intelligent, you’d ask: What of us, the rulers ? What of me, Ellsworth Monkton Toohey ? And I’d say, Yes, you’re right. I’ll achieve no more than you will. I’ll have no purpose save to keep you contended. To lie, to flatter you, to praise you, to inflate your vanity. To make speeches about the people and the common good. Peter, my poor old friend, I’m the most selfless man you’ve ever known. I have less independence than you, whom I just forced to sell your soul. You’ve used people at least for the sake of what you could get from them for yourself. I want nothing for myself. I use people for the sake of what I can do to them. It’s my only function and satisfaction. I have no private purpose. I want power. I want my world of the future. Let all live for all. Let all sacrifice and none profit. Let all suffer and none enjoy. Let progress stop. Let all stagnate. There’s equality in stagnation. All subjugated to the will of all. Universal slavery – without even the dignity of a master. Slavery to slavery. A great circle – and a total equality. The world of the future.”
“Ellsworth… you’re…”
“Insane ? Afraid to say it ? There you sit and the world’s written all over you, your last hope. Insane ? Look around you. Pick up any newspaper and read the headlines. Isn’t it coming ? Isn’t it here? Every single thing I told you ? Isn’t Europe swallowed already and we’re stumbling on to follow ? Everything I said is contained in a single word – collectivism. And isn’t that the god of our century. To act together. To think – together. To feel – together. To unite, to agree, to obey. To obey, to serve, to sacrifice. Divide and conquer – first. But then, unite and rule. We’ve discovered that one last. Remember the Roman Emperor who said he wished humanity had a single neck so he could cut it ? People have laughed at him for centuries. But we’ll have the last laugh. We’ve accomplished what he couldn’t accomplish. We’ve taught men to unite. This makes one neck ready for one leash. We found the magic word. Collectivism.
Look at Europe, you fool. Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence ? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the proletariat.
That’s one version. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the harsh reality of two continents already ? If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective. Give the fools a chance, let them have their fun – but don’t forget the only purpose you have to accomplish. Kill the individual. Kill man’s soul. The rest will follow automatically.”
The Fountainhead is the only Ayn Rand book I actually enjoyed reading. And damn is it poignant.
The book that started it for me, and the scene I remember most – The Removal of the Mask.
When my first calculas professor walked into class I almost shouted out “Ellsworth Toohey!”. He looked just like I’d pictured the character in the book.
My first calculus prof. looked like a normal dude, but his voice was exactly like Kermit the Frog’s!
Tears for Fears. So they started out, at least the first song I ever heard from them… back in the ancient of days when MTV (music television you know) actually played music, with the mentioned ‘everybody wants to rule the world’. I’ve always loved that song from the first time I saw/heard it. The Euro Donnie Osmond clone twins, but actually making a cool song about something that actually made sense and with some good guitar? Awesome. One hit wonder.
Not for me. Their first 2 albums are really, really good.
Only song I like by them is the one mentioned.
I can’t even.
“one hit wonder”, pfffft. “Head over Heels” and “Shout” were also really big songs in the US (and I’m pretty sure Change and Mad World charted at least in the UK before that, but that I won’t swear to).
Head Over Heels and Mad World are my favorite songs from them. I do have a personal taste for 80s sounds from time to time.
Sowing the Seeds of Love was a hit as well. #1 in the US, top 40 in the UK, IIRC.
A quick search reveals that it was actually #2, kept out of #1 by Janet Jackson. Which would make me want to find my copy of Rhythm Nation 1814 again, except that it’s on cassette and I don’t have a working tape deck.
(embarrassed to admit this was all my senior year of high school)
Their 2004 album Everybody Loves A Happy Ending was really good.
Shout?
Sowing the Seeds of Love?
On the team bus coming home from a swim meet several of us were talking politics and the coach said “you guys should read The Fountainhead it’ll change how you look at everything.”. I did and it did.
Actually it gave me the beginnings of the intellectual framework for how I was already thinking about things.
“Yet the test should be so simple: just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice – run. Run faster than from a plague.” – Ayn Rand
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” – U. S. Declaration of Independence
“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.” – Thomas Paine, The Crisis
“If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others.” – Frederick Douglass
Besides Old Bay and a cool-looking flag, being the birthplace of Frederick Douglass is one of the few things that Maryland has to be proud of.
In all seriousness, I’d never read any of his speeches until a few years ago. I read a speech he gave to an abolitionist group in PA and chills went down my spine. I’ve never been able to name a person I would consider a “hero”, but if I could pick one person in history to meet and talk to, he’s damned high on the list. Especially when you consider his story, it’s an amazing testament to just how impressive a person he was.
Someday, when my kids are like, “Dad, I don’t feel like doing my homework, I’m tired,” I’m going to say, “Let me tell you about Frederick Douglass.”
That’s not the type of sacrifice she was talking about. Rand wouldn’t see anything wrong with enduring hardship in service to a future goal or to struggle for one’s independence, in fact, she would define that as heroic. What she’s talking about is giving up one’s happiness, one’s liberty, one’s life in service to the desires of others. You must sacrifice so that others be happy. When does someone sacrifice for your happiness? Well, that’s the racket.
The Continental soldiers who died in the Revolutionary War died for my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were to that extent altruistic, deal with it.
And they didn’t die for their own rights as well?
I seem to recall that some of the belief systems she criticized teach that altruistic people can get some kind of benefit from it…
“Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’” Matthew 25:34-40 (NABRE)
Again, you’re not using the term in the sense she was employing it. Altruism, per Rand, refers to the specific philosophical definition of the word, as first used by August Comte. He argued that the moral value of an action was purely based on how it benefited other people. Under this system of ethics, a moral individual is one who lives for others above him or her self, and will always place the desires of others over one’s own desires. Comte would go on to be criticized by Nietzsche, who in turn, would be plagiarized by Rand.
I think it’s broadly known that one of the forms of self-sacrifice Rand had in her sights was the Christian version.
For that matter, Nietzsche was down on Christianity, too, and he thought that the post-Christian philosophies of his day had too many trace elements of Christianity in them.
I don’t think anyone is denying Rand was an atheist, much less that Comtian ethics was one of the things that made her critical of religion. However, I don’t see the connection between that fact and the quotes from the DoI or the “ruddy little atheist” Paine. They are of a different species for reasons already noted.
By her own account, her test was “simple” – flee any “prophet” who speaks of sacrifice. Is that not what Paine and Douglass spoke of?
No. Toohey said that right after saying “You must tell people they’ll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy.” I think the context is clear.
Who does Rand have in mind by talking about giving up everything that makes you happy? Who actually holds the position Rand (through her villain Toohey) describes?
Modern Randians try to get around this by saying that people who fight and die in a cause that benefits others are acting out of rational selfishness, etc., but that sounds a lot like cheating.
“The causes *I* want people to sacrifice for are all about rational self-interest, while the causes *others* sacrifice for are irrational and based on evil altruism!”
No, they’re just rejecting the positivist definition of ethics, as I noted upthread.
“There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul?) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.
“This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men’s natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war — both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man’s soul).”
–Rand to Sylvia Austin, 1946
Correct. As I wrote, Rand was no fan of the Comtian definition of ethics; however, it would be a mistake to equivocate that specific philosophical definition of “altruism” or “sacrifice” with the everyday meaning, and claim that Rand was against any sort of delayed gratification or endurance of hardship.
I was indicating that she targeted Christianity itself, and she told her readers to reject it (along with Comte, etc.) through her “simple” test of fleeing prophets who preached sacrifice.
“Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used.” Playboy interview, 1964
Forgive me, because I’m not a Rand guy, but I’m going to take a stab at this.
My understanding of Rand’s take on that would be this: those soldiers died of their own free will, gaining satisfaction from the idea that they were sacrificing of themselves to create a country they wanted for their families, friends, compatriots, what-have-you. To the extent they weren’t forced, or compelled through guilt, they were doing what they wanted. It was selfish in the sense that they did something that they wanted more than anything else.
IOW, I love my daughter. I do things for my daughter that make her happy, or provide for her security in the future. To accomplish that, I sacrifice things of value to me, but I do so because the payoff is greater. That the payoff is someone else’s happiness doesn’t detract from the happiness that I gain from having made the sacrifice.
Like I say, Randians have been struggling to find a formula by which the kinds of self-sacrifice they like are actually selfish, while the kinds of self-sacrifice they *don’t* like, are “altruistic” and evil.
They tie themselves into knots explaining how the firemen who gave their lives on 9/11 were selfish and good, while presumably the likes of Fr. Damien were altruistic and bad.
Well, no. A true Objectivist would argue that the NYFD who died on 9/11 were tax-leeching parasites who deserved to die.
Alas, I am not a true Objectivist.
I would like to see where an actual Objectivist said that.
I couldn’t find the 9/11 articles, but I found this Objectivist analysis of how firemen who died fighting a fire in Arizona were being genuinely selfish and not altruistic.
If they analyzed Objectivism correctly, then the philosophy is simply a way to justify the kind of sacrifice *they* like while keeping “altruist!” as a devil-word against their opponents.
If they analyzed Objectivism incorrectly, then Objectivism is open to the same attack Rand mounted against Christianity – that it sets up standards its own practitioners can’t follow.
You should read the bit in Atlas Shrugged about the victims of the train crash in the tunnel and why they all deserved to die.
Like I say, Randians have been struggling to find a formula by which the kinds of self-sacrifice they like are actually selfish, while the kinds of self-sacrifice they *don’t* like, are “altruistic” and evil.
This line of criticism was so thoroughly addressed by Rand herself and her acolytes that it is like the Objectivist equivalent of a Christian confronted with the perennial smug freshman atheist’s rejoinder: “If god were omnibenevolent there could be no evil in the world!” It’s either a bad faith argument or else emblematic of ignorance of the topic, and you’d call out the smug freshman atheist for it. So don’t engage in it yourself.
I notice that you didn’t actually make a substantive reply to my argument.
Do you agree with this quote from the firefighter article I linked above:
“Firefighters properly pursue their own selfish values in pursuing their career. They help others—because they love the work and thrive on it. Perhaps not all firefighters regard their work as in their rational self-interest, but certainly many do. And the selfish heroism of those who do is what merits admiration and respect.”
I may have if you’d offered an argument. You gave an assertion based upon your very deliberate misunderstanding of terminology that’s been elucidated a billion times, including by HM just above.
I’m not an Objectivist, but I understand that argument and don’t find it the least bit contradictory within the framework of Objectivism. You can be self-sacrificial for selfish reasons. It’s really not so complex an argument.
Heh, I quoted from your Prophetess and at least one of her acolytes, but you don’t think I’m being relevant to the topic.
Do you have any quotes from the Prophetess which, in your opinion, *are* relevant?
“You can be self-sacrificial for selfish reasons. It’s really not so complex an argument.”
Of course it’s not complex, the complexity comes in when they try to explain why Father Damien is an altruist and the Arizona firefighters were selfish.
2nd and last time: I’m not an Objectivist. Don’t act like an asshole because you’re hot under the collar that you got called out for arguing like a simpleton. You wouldn’t accept simpleton arguments from an atheist with no comprehension of the last thousand years of Christian theology, so don’t expect to be treated any better when you do the same with another’s philosophy.
the complexity comes in when they try to explain why Father Damien is an altruist and the Arizona firefighters were selfish.
You didn’t provide a source for anyone arguing that Fr. Damien was altruistic or selfish, you inferred it from a completely separate piece about firefighters in Arizona who died doing their job. The answer to your question is actually contained therein, if you were interested in finding it rather than flogging a dead horse:
You are using “altruistic” in a sense much different from the one Rand exposited over the course of her career. The motivations of the individual are largely deterministic of whether an action is altruistic or selfish. In the Randian conception, altruism is usually accompanied by some kind of guilt or guilt complex.
“so don’t expect to be treated any better”
Oh, don’t hold back for my sake, by all means use more insults and hope that makes up for your lack of good arguments.
You missed Rand’s reference above to “men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors.” Her Nietzschean idea is of getting superior man to acknowledge his superiority and stop sacrificing himself for the sake of inferiors. Anything which benefits these inferiors has to be a side-effect of an effort at self-assertion and fulfilling a superior man’s true self.
But once someone starts making sacrifices for the sake of those pesky inferiors he’s fallen prey to the altruistic deception.
So to defend the firefighters, you have to read their minds and assume that with unfortunate exceptions they were engaged in noble self-assertion, not Christian-style service to fellow humans.
The Objectivist essayist ties himself into knots to defend the firefighters by imputing selfish motives to them – without indicating what evidence he has of these selfish motives. It’s almost as if he’s stretching a point to philosophically accommodate those kinds of sacrifices he likes.
by all means use more insults and hope that makes up for your lack of good arguments.
If you don’t want to get called an asshole, don’t act like one. You don’t like it when people mockingly make reference to your “skydady” or refuse to acknowledge Christian terms of art or refuse to take on Christian theology within its own context. Because it’s assholeish behavior. Don’t do the same.
You missed Rand’s reference above to “men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors.”
It’s not really relevant to a discussion of altruism as a complete concept in the Randian context – she saw her philosophy of rational egoism as equally applicable to the inferior class as well. Most of her stories are framed as such both because she saw herself in exaggeratedly grandiose terms and because of the influence of communism with its elevation of need as a virtue on her background and the public discourse of the time.
So to defend the firefighters, you have to read their minds and assume that with unfortunate exceptions they were engaged in noble self-assertion, not Christian-style service to fellow humans.
True. You would equally have to read their minds to assume that they were engaged in Christian-style service to fellow humans. Perhaps the best way to frame it would be to say that firefighters are not by definition altruistic (in either the Randian or colloquial sense), and that assuming as much was a mistake on Robert Reich’s part. And that theoretically, there are selfish (in either the Randian or colloquial sense) reasons a firefighter might be a firefighter. Would that change anything for you though?
Presented with evidence that the dead firefighters were, in fact, engaged in Christian-style service to fellow humans, I don’t think very many Objectivists would pick a quarrel with you about it. It’s the assumption that all self-sacrificial behavior is altruistic that Objectivists get worked up about.
“If you don’t want to get called an asshole, don’t act like one.”
Because I’m really worried about being insulted by the likes of you. I’d do anything to avoid that!
Seriously, go ahead and give it your best shot, please don’t spare my feelings. Call me a poopyhead if it makes you feel better. Just so long as you’re doing it for your own sake, not for the sake of others!
“It’s the assumption that all self-sacrificial behavior is altruistic that Objectivists get worked up about.”
It’s really hard to tell – nigh impossible for mere humans – to sort out the complex motivations which lead someone to make a self-sacrificing act.
Some people can see a self-sacrificing act and say “whatever your motivation, thank you – and in addition, let’s charitably assume your motives were good. If not, your actions sure were helpful anyway!”
An Objectivist can’t take that position – because it is *evil* to do a self-sacrificing act from altruistic motives.
So the Objectivist needs to hope a selfish motive was involved.
And the Objectivists on some level hope and/or expect that selfish people will do good, as a side-effect of their selfishness – not only in the marketplace where selling good products to willing customers has a direct financial reward, but also in fields like firefighting, military service, charity, etc., etc., which are outside traditional market mechanisms.
From their defense of certain self-sacrificing behavior, and their attempts to put it into the “selfishness” column, the Objectivists seem like they’re focusing on what, philosophically, is a mere side-effect when they should be focused on the real issue – are these people being true to themselves?
Seriously, go ahead and give it your best shot
I already said everything I had to say about it. If I’d wanted to call you names for its own sake I would have. That’s not what happened, as much as you want to play the martyr, and it’s a transparent evasion that makes you look even sillier.
I thought perhaps your Christian sense of fairness and justice would make you sensitive to the idea that others deserve the same respect and fairness of consideration that you expect for yourself, but then I guess that’s why I’m not as holy as thou.
Pat, feel free to altruistically fuck yourself.
An Objectivist can’t take that position – because it is *evil* to do a self-sacrificing act from altruistic motives.
Yes. Bearing in mind that altruism and self-sacrifice in a Randian context don’t mean exactly the same thing as they do in a general context. But the Objectivists don’t hope that good results will come from selfishness, because they don’t believe in Augustinian depravity. If people aren’t evil then you don’t really have to worry about their selfishness leading inevitably to bad outcomes. If people are actually good then their selfishness is likely to lead to good outcomes. Let it never be said that Rand couldn’t be as Pollyannaish as her detractors.
Sperging out over people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is also hardly exclusive to Objectivists. It’s just the opposite end of a continuum. On the other end, anyone doing good deeds while profiting personally or financially from it is looked upon suspiciously.
The only self-martyrdom I see if yours with your whining about unfairness, etc. – and your attempt to pose as a member of a powerless, prophetic minority beholding the ruin caused by Christian altruism.
I’m still not an Objectivist, as much as you’d like me to be. I don’t think HM is either. But I know enough about Objectivism to recognize when it is being misrepresented. I know you understandably don’t appreciate it when people do that with Christianity, so I was just asking you to extend the same courtesy. I’ve defended you on the same grounds many times.
You make a lot of assertions, drop a lot of insults…but you’re short on evidence.
Harry Browne goes a step further than the Objectivists and argues that altruism doesn’t even exist. Every action is done for selfish reasons. In his view, a person who donates a large sum of money to charity is just as selfish as a person who spends the same amount on hookers and blow, because both of them acted in a way that would produce the most happiness for themselves.
I think this tends towards circular reasoning: “Every act is selfish, and we know every act is selfish because people are selfish and act selfishly.”
It is a fact that people make sacrifices for the benefit of others. I suppose you can call that selfish if you define everything people do as selfish. A person handing over their wallet to a mugger is being selfish by that definition.
Whatever the reason, I prefer it when people don’t screw each other over just because they can.
“Harry Browne goes a step further than the Objectivists and argues that altruism doesn’t even exist.”
That would take most of the fun out of Objectivism – without an evil “altruist” Other, where could they get all that precious moral indignation?
without an evil “altruist” Other, where could they get all that precious moral indignation?
You could always get them to convert.
On the one hand, her definition is “simple” and “not complex.”
The complexity comes in when, having broadened the definition of selfishness enough to take in firefighters who die protecting the community from fires, you can still throw the epithet “althruist” against Christians who sacrifice their lives, say, in caring for lepers, etc.
It’s still simple and still not complex if you actually understand the way the word “altruist” is used in the context of Objectivism, which you willfully refuse to do. You’re still more than welcome to think Rand’s conception of the altruism is wrong, but it’s not an inconsistent application in that context.
Caring for lepers even though you’d rather be doing something else because you think you might go to hell if you don’t, or because you would feel extremely guilty if you didn’t, or because you would be shamed by your peers if you didn’t, those would be altruistic behaviors in the Randian conception. Fighting fires even though you’d rather be doing something else for any of the same reasons would be equally altruistic. On the other hand, you could care for lepers or fight fires and still remain a saintly rational egoist in the Randian conception as long as your reasons for doing so are selfish – i.e., you enjoy pitting yourself against the forces of nature, you enjoy the challenge of treating disease, you derive pride and self-respect from ensuring public safety, etc.
There’s 2 billion Christians in the world and probably a few thousand Objectivists, so it’s not like this is a really important moral question anyway. For better or worse, you’re on the “right side of history” as far as this goes.
Again, why did the essayist consider it necessary to defend the selfishness of those firefighters without, as far as I am aware, actually knowing their motivations?
Their motivations would make the difference between (good) selfishness and (bad) altruism. So while allowing that there might be some bad altruistic apples in the ranks of the firefighters, the essayist was willing to impute (good) selfishness to many of them.
The firefighters were made honorary Randians, the way the apartheid-era South Africans designated some of their Japanese visitors as honorary whites – because they wanted to maintain their ideological categories while reserving the right to give respect to people they liked.
“For better or worse, you’re on the “right side of history” as far as this goes.”
I am not 100% sure what you’re saying here but I imagine you fancy that you just let loose a witty insult.
Again, why did the essayist consider it necessary to defend the selfishness of those firefighters without, as far as I am aware, actually knowing their motivations?
The article you linked to was a response to one by Robert Reich in Salon, wherein Reich uses the ostensible altruism of the dead AZ firefighters as a refutation of Randian morality (while largely making the same error that you are in misinterpreting or misrepresenting what “altruism” means in the Randian context). The author flips the construction around to challenge Reich’s assumption that the only motivation of the firefighters was altruism (which was also assumed without evidence), and to demonstrate that altruism in the Randian context does not preclude self-sacrifice. If both authors had framed their arguments in the theoretical I suppose we could have avoided this whole discussion.
I am not 100% sure what you’re saying here but I imagine you fancy that you just let loose a witty insult.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail I guess.
I’m saying that expressed as a percentage and rounded to a whole number, Objectivists represent 0% of the population. Most of the world, including those who abandoned the rest of your theology long ago, subscribe to the Christian notion of altruism, charity, and self-sacrifice, and it’s well-reflected in our institutions and societies. So you really don’t need to worry so much about the moral arguments of Rand.
You are focusing too much on the apprentice and not enough on the master.
Nietzsche was the one who erupted on the world uttering what at the time were shocking, daring and bold ideas about superior men freeing themselves from the influence of Christian morality. Rand was one of Nietzsche’s disciples, without the sense of humor.
Nietzsche had great influence – Oliver Wendell Holmes swallowed his philosophy and brought much of it onto the Supreme Court. H. L. Mencken’s first book introduced Nietzsche to Americans.
And the ultimate compliment – or insult, as Nietzsche would have seen it – was when one of Nietzsche’s aphorisms was cited in Dilbert as an example of conventional wisdom.
You are focusing too much on the apprentice and not enough on the master.
Well, the actual topic at the outset was Rand. There are peculiarities of her moral philosophy, especially where it regards her concept of altruism and self-sacrifice, that can’t be understood in purely Nietzschean context. Which may be why you’re having so much trouble with it.
Rand herself wrote:
The problem wth that is that it seems to me that Christians have to play the same “word games”, just in reverse. Christian doctrine is that Christ, the only true innocent in human history was brutally tortured and suffered an excruciating death for sins not his own, but everybody else’s. I don’t see how that can be viewed as anything other than an injustice of monumental, unfathomable proportions and how anyone accepting salvation on such terms isn’t participating in that monstrous injustice. To get any legitimacy to it, you have to say Jesus willingly suffered that injustice in pursuit of something he valued more. But then you’re just saying Christ’s death on the cross wasn’t sacrifice, but the pursuit of a higher value.
Also, I think her love of Aristotle would mean that she could justify putting oneself in harm’s way as a type of Eudaimonia. Then again, I’ve never heard her speak directly on that topic.
Yeah that stood out to me as well. Sacrifice of happiness to achieve something is a product of reason itself. Men understand delayed gratification because we can look beyond the moment. Self sufficiency relies on this.
I think we can say with almost absolute certainty that not one of the Continental soldiers who died did so for you or even knew who you were.
She redefined the word sacrifice to not mean what the rest of us mean by it.
Under her definition, a pawn sacrifice in chess isn’t actually a sacrifice.
I lead lots of Rand stuff, but that kind of stuff pisses me off.
Also, Aristotle had a good excuse, but she was around late enough to know about Goedel. In some rare instances, contradictions can exist.
Aldous Huxley was a tad more realistic with his villains and his dystopia (sp?).
In Huxley’s Brave New World, the people were stripped of their freedom and bought off with a constant round of low pleasures and the denial of noble impulses. The “savage” retained these atavistic noble impulses and there was no place for him.
A “progressive,” anti-intellectual educational system that, from kindergarten to graduate school, creates students who can’t read or write — students brainwashed into the feeling that their minds are helpless and they must adapt to “society,” that there is no absolute truth and that morality is whatever society says it is.
Tell half your students that their opinions come from some invisible and undetectable spring of bigotry tapped into by their ancestors and the other half that they fail because of those same bigoted ancestors and the system they created. That’s a great way to equalize the outcome and produce students that can’t read or write. “I can’t read or write because everything I write is bigoted.” “I can’t read or write because of those bigots.”
I don’t know how anyone can read the Fountainhead and not see how it resonates today. It’s all … right there. It’s occasionally maddening to me when I see proggy friends spout off their versions of exactly what she was warning against, and they’re so blithely sure it’s ‘right’ because feels/reasons/brainwashing/whatever, and I want to smack them with the book. They’re walking the early steps, so convinced of their righteousness, and they don’t see where it goes — and when told where it goes, they don’t want to see it, partly out of willful denial, partly out of ignorance. The useful idiots supporting a regime that they can’t achieve power in, according to their own terms. Like white college girls who are so sure they’re going to end up on top of whatever this thing they’re building is, when I look at it and I know, if they do build it, they’re going to get shoved off the balcony once their usefulness is over.
The Climate Change Problem
If progressives think it’s a serious threat to humanity, why don’t they act like it?
by Nathan J. Robinson
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/11/the-climate-change-problem
***
Imagine scientists discovered an asteroid hurtling toward earth. And they tried to warn people that unless urgent action was taken to blow up the asteroid, everyone would perish. But “asteroid denialism” set in. Blowing up the asteroid would require raising taxes and would disrupt the orderly operations of capitalism. Republicans would insist that the entire asteroid idea was a scheme cooked up by elitist liberal eggheads designed to scare Middle America into voting Democratic and bringing about a feminist Marxist dictatorship. But honestly, if the people voicing concerns about the asteroid were penning occasional op-eds, rather than constantly doing everything they could to persuade people to believe in the asteroid, I wouldn’t be sure that they really believed there was an asteroid at all. If they spent their time going to conferences and eating brunch, I would think that perhaps the Republicans were right. After all, people who think an asteroid will kill us all unless people are persuaded to stop it do not sit around eating brunch. After all, it’s a fucking deadly asteroid.
The situation with climate change is much like the asteroid. Every good progressive affirms on an intellectual level that climate change is not just a problem, but the problem. Yet if it’s really true that unless we act in the next few years, a series of very bad things will happen that may take many many, lives, nobody should be acting the way many contemporary progressives act. Certainly nobody should be watching Netflix. Unless you convince people that they are about to suffer terribly, then climate change will not prevent them from voting for a denialist like Donald Trump. So you’d better be out convincing people…
***
It’s so funny when they slide right up to the edge and still can’t fall off. Nathan, the reason people don’t act like that is because in their hearts, they don’t really *believe* the alarmism. They know it’s a faith, not a science. That’s why there’s so much hiding of data and resistance to debate, and why “denialism” is even a thing– they know it’ll unravel once you pull on a thread too hard, so they forbid any thread pulling.
Though my favorite part is that now it’s apparently a 99% consensus. 99%!!
He doesn’t consider anywhere WHY people both assert certainty about CAGW yet don’t act as they are certain.
He seems to pretend that this apparent contradiction is just ‘in error’. And that this is the only possible assumption.
Instead, if he had 2 brain cells to rub together, he might note that the policies which climate change activists propose and “bog-standard leftist demands” have a very large area of overlap-. Namely, in forcing massive government intervention into an area of the economy which they’ve seen as their natural enemy for decades: Energy.
If they could turn energy markets into their personal fiefdom – like the way they have education, and the way they are close to achieving w/ healthcare…? – why, it would link together a holy trinity of *control*: of what people think, of who they rely on for their health, and what they need to power their modern life.
All their enemies would have is “money”… and the caretakers of those financial institutions in truth have no allegiances to anything. they don’t care about changes to the rules, as long as they are the ones who get to keep overseeing the game.
if anyone really believed that climate change were a threat to ‘sustainable’ human life, they’d demand the US go to war with China, and obliterate them completely. because only the already-developed nations have the wealth and infrastructure to afford the sort of Energeiwende that climate change would require. The only “problem” is India, China… because it is not developed world growth that the CO2 models really look at. The margin of error in future Chinese emissions growth is larger than the entire carbon output of Europe in the next 100 years, China is going to add many many multiple times the amount of emissions that the entire ‘developed’ western world has released from the 18th century to now.
but they never utter a peep about the developing world. they only want to hamstring the developed one. which should tell you what it is they really want.
David Twohy did give us this libertarian moment.
Oh, wrong Toohey.
Since this is a Rand thread, I’ll throw in my two cents neither normies nor randians seem to ever acknowledge. Altruism does not exist, every behavior is based on selfishness. Even if you go back in time and kill Hitler, it is only done to make yourself feel better. Martyrs as well as dictators, everyone does what makes them feel better. Even if one does something they feel is a sacrifice, it is only done because not doing so would feel worse. Rand hit on self interest, but really couldn’t see that everything, even statist ideas, are done in self interest. Every self-sacrifice is done because the sacrificed chose sacrifice over not doing anything. I can usually say all this better, forgive me, I’m 15 beers deep.
On a different note, Collective Soul took their name from The Fountainhead (I think they just thought it was a cool sounding name, not sure if any of them were interested in the philosophy)