The Psychopathology of Ayn Rand

Post Reply New Topic

Did I offend?

I apologize, it is just that "driven by atheism and neodarwinism" really is a problematic thing without some underpinnings. I don't think the underpinnings really exist though. I mean, Rand's theory of man actually disagrees strongly with evolutionary psychology according to one economist.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/201 ... oluti.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/201 ... uti_1.html

It is possible that Rand was a neodarwinist who had an undarwinian account of human cognition, however, the idea is difficult to uphold.


I didn't attack you on the issue of big picture, but rather on your diagnosis of the underpinnings of Rand's philosophy. I'm fine with you on that.

If this is the case she could have been overly narrow to the point of factual falsehood if its the full picture we're talking about. She seemed to understand the concept of 'alpha', the strong survive, etc. down pretty well though I think with her philosophy she would have debated that this needed to take more precedence over the 'altruism' which makes society work in a more humane way (which I could see that as a product of micro-evolution in terms of gene pools meeting the broader trends). While she is right about certain impediments that altruism represents or degradation in the gene pool I still think there are far more compassionate ways to resolve issues of that sort - as do most people I would imagine.

I don't think she really was a social Darwinist. I don't think her attack on altruism was based so much on Darwinism as it was on her view of individualism. I don't think her concern had anything to do with weaker people dying, only with the liberty of the strong. She didn't believe in "humaneness", she believed in the unfettered liberty of all men to do anything in their rational self-interest (as Objectivists would define it). Objectivism has a very strong view of human rights and human duties, and this isn't based upon "evolution" so much as Rand's view of a duty to egoism based upon the support of life, as denying one's life(for altruism or anything else) is seen as kin to denying life itself.

I don't know where she talked about gene pools though. I've never heard of her talking about gene pools, and I can't see how her egoistic men would feel a duty to the genes, species, or anything else like that.

Is there something you are referencing? I get the feeling that you are projecting social Darwinism onto her rather than seeking to interpret Rand as she is, as I've never heard a direct connection.

Not exactly. She commenced work on a book based on a hero based on what Hickman suggested to her. Hickman's outside, but with a purpose or some such blather.


The man murdered and then mutiliated the body of a 12 year old school girl. One can only wonder what the "worse sins and crimes" Rand believed the average citizen was engaging in....altruism perhaps.

She had more to say about this individual however:

I suggest his crimes were numerous, and include, kidnap, murder, mutilitation of a human corpse, welching on a deal (he'd have faced the wheel if he lived in the Thunderdome).
But Rand does not leave us to guess without providing some data for speculation...

Aha, so murdering and dismembering 12 year old school girls is not a crime (although being impatient or not strong enough might be), but certainly Christianity is criminal.


In Ms Rand's own words



She compiled a list of the qualities of this person she admired (including his smile apparently), she based one of her earliest heros (in a not completed book) on him. She felt that what he did was a lesser crime and sin than the average person, and rated Christianity a crime while being confused as to what Hickman did that was so very wrong. None of which is entailed in simply being disgusted at mainstream societal values. I myself have been a teenager and at no time did I feel that mainstream values that disgusted me included the prohibitions on mudering and dismembering people. Being aghast at society's mainstream values does not usually entail compiling lists of the qualities one admires in a murderer.


There is no indication whatsoever that she "snapped out of" the ideas that led her to admire Hickman. Indeed the same themes that appear in her admiration of Hickman continue to characterize her "philosophy", characters, and rhetoric.

What she admired about Hickman was that other people did not exist for him and he saw no reason why they should. She admired his sociopathy. Further she did so on the basis of particular values and ideas. These values and ideals can be found in her much latter writing and are entirely consistent with the things she continued to espouse. The same arguments, rational and ideals that she espouses and uses to justify her views in latter life and writings are the same ones she applied to determine that Hickman was a "real man" and wider socity the true criminals who in fact "made him do it".

Rand was convinced that society could not be angry about what happened to that child for the girl's own sake. Anyone who is capable of feeling empathy for other humans will understand why people might be angry and outraged at such a thing. Rand does not believe that people are honestly angry and outraged about this and decides it must be because Hickman challenged their mores in doing what he wanted instead of being servile. In her view, society is not upset about the pain and suffering of an innocent 12 year old school girl, but instead is just ego tripping over someone showing them what a real man does (which is what he wants).

So her philosophy and ideals arise from a mind that cannot conceive of empathy and so may not be characterized by it, and are entirely compatible with murder, corpse mutilation and deal welching. More importantly her philosphy, ideals and values are compatible with murdering 12 year old school girls. This to me seems a relevant consideration when evaluating the worth and applicability of such values, ideals and philosophical stances.

These are certainly anti social traits and arguably sociopathic ones also. What value can there be in a moral value system that is compatible with admiring someone's willingness to murder and mutilate 12 year old school girls?

You do realize that the two phrasings are saying the same thing.

Hickman suggested to her = based partially on Hickman. I mean, in both cases Hickman is part of it, but it isn't really Hickman.


Perhaps passivity. I don't think killing somebody is the worst thing a person can do or being a murderer is the least virtuous thing a person can be.


Ok? She romanticized a symbol she saw in Hickman. I don't really see the biggest issue.


Alright, fine, I'll officially accept this as fawning. She admits that her romanticism towards Hickman isn't real. She isn't making him into a saint. She is creating an image out of what she sees and she knows this.


Umm.... ok? You still aren't proving much. I think most of us here have been teenagers. When I was a teenager, I had an admiration of Joseph Stalin, and believed that large portions of the population needed to be purged for their moral weaknesses in order to unify a perfect state. Is this proof of anything about me, the current person? I will admit that some of my intellectual themes have changed radically, but still, I don't see your case for anything here based off of this.


Your point? Themes prove continuity, but they don't prove sameness. A thinker can have the same themes throughout their life time and change their positions multiple times in regard to those themes.


I still don't see the problem. I mean, if you want to say that Ayn Rand's philosophy is sociopathic, I don't think anybody has to say much other than to accept this conclusion to some extent. She was openly an ethical egoist. In any case, I doubt it is the exact same philosophical position.


Ok? Many minds have weird conceptions of things. Sartre talked about randomly running over somebody as a way of actualizing a person's free will.

Rand's theory is odd, but I don't see all of the problems that you seem to find.


Ok? First off, who knows what Ayn Rand is really capable of conceiving? Frankly, I think most people are willing to accept that she must have some form of emotional damage. Additionally, I am still going to say that the years are to some extent a factor. I also don't see murder, corpse mutilation, or deal welching to have to be necessarily wrong in all cases. It seems to me that Rand's philosophy and ideals, to more fully capture them, tend to be characterized by a willingness to do evil to an oppressive society, but also include the idea of the "good society" where such things are impermissible.


Lots of value is possible. The Greek philosophers upheld slavery. Christian philosophers across the ages have upheld God's morality in genocide and to execute his son to appease his honor. Utilitarians are ok with betraying a man's last wishes and killing/harming people without any concern for justice. Deontologists have been unwilling to lie to save a person's life. Kierkegaard upheld a man's willingness to kill his son because "God told him so" as centrally important. I think I've already mentioned Sartre's issue. I mean, if you look through history, there have been a lot of ethicists who have had pretty crazy ideas and there is a lot to be learned from all of them. I don't think that Rand is nearly as informative as the others though, as I don't think she is a real intellectual and that her intellectual system breaks down rather readily, *but* I don't think any fact about her disqualifies her.

I think I do concede the original case though, as in that "she glorified him" in some sense by idealizing him. However, I still find the motives driving these efforts questionable, and they seem about as ideologically driven as those who would try to make Rand into a saint.

That being said though, I still don't buy into all of the negativity towards this one person, or all that is being projected onto this one person. I respect many thinkers who have respected Ayn Rand in the past, such as Will Wilkinson and Bryan Caplan who are former Objectivists, and I also have respected many things said by Roderick Long, who is an editor of the journal of Rand studies and who considers himself a left-libertarian.

The first is much more vague and could as easily refer to writing a semi-fact based account about Hickman (rather than merely using him as an archtype for a character), so I disagree that they are saying the same thing.

Based on Hickman could refer as much to his life, circumstances or acts as to using him as a character archtype in entirely dissimilar circumstances and without any reference to Hickman's actual life.

Which is quite different from saying that just about everybody within society has commited these less virtuous acts. If you believe that the average person has committed sins and crimes worse than kidnapping, murdering and dismembering a 12 year old who has done no particular harm, I guess you are entitled to your opinion but unless you can specify what these crimes and sins are that the average person has undoubtably engaged in, do not expect others to believe that this particular opinion is remotely realistic.

The value system she espoused is consistent with Hickman's acts and actually construes them as moral. I think when evaluating the worth of that moral system that this is a big issue. If you think a value system that construes Hickman as virtuous is a good one, well clearly this is something we disagree on, but I find it difficult to believe that you cannot see how this might be an issue to someone evaluating the value system Rand was espousing.


Aha, and what is significant is what it was that caused her to idealize Hickman, and that is that his conduct (kidnap, muder, corpse dismembering of a 12 year old school girl) in her view was the epitomy of the values that she herself held.


I am not particularly interested in Rand as a person as she is actually dead now and beyond effecting anything other than through her ideas, values and writings. The problem I have is with those values, ideas and writings. I have a problem with value systems that construe murdering 12 year old school girls for fun as virtuous. The reasons why she construed Hickman as virtuous for his conduct are the same values and ideals that she continued to uphold and advocate. If you consider what she persistently argued in her latter works, she is arguing the same values that caused her to evaluate Hickman as moral, and I think that this is very relevant to any evaluation of the worth of her value system as an applied practice.

My point is that Rand's value system when applied construes murdering 12 year old girls as morally good. There is no change in the values that Rand espoused during her career and those that she based arguments of Hickman's moral goodness on.


Many people are apparently beggining to see her philosophy and values as desirable. Sales of Rand's books are on the increase. People are taking her value system seriously and advocating for it. Whether or not they are doing so in full knowledge that they are advocating in favour of sociopathy, I cannot prove either way. I think that an argument that her value system was sociopathic is pertinent in a thread that asks about her "sociopathy" as whether or not she was sociopathic, her value system seems to be and it can be described as hers.

They seem obvious enough to me.

Rand was not talking about all cases, she was talking very specifically about the particular case involving Hickman and I think it is rather disengenious to rely on arguments that pretend what is being discussed is "any kind of murder in any case whatsoever" rather than the very specific murder of this 12 year old school girl, which evidently was for the fun of it.


Well I would describe all these things as having limited value, but a bigger problem with Rand's value system is that other than justifying sociopathy there seems to be nothing else in it.


Perhaps this has something to do with the fact of how such issues are debated societally. It's all about personalities.


When I read Rand's values and ideals as she communicated them, I considered that she must be assuming some arbitrary qualificaiton, otherwise the values she was espousing would construe someone who muderered and raped children because they wanted to as morally correct to do so...I think it is very pertinent when evaluating her value system/"philosophy" that Rand when applying the values she later communicated in her published works did indeed intend a system that would construe such conduct as a moral necessity.

I have no particular feelings about Rand, but I do feel quite negatively about the values she espoused.

So, the objection is that they aren't complete substitutes, therefore they aren't the same? Couldn't that same objection fit for many synonyms given that synonyms rarely have the same meaning as other phrasings? That being said, "partially based" seems actually to be a stronger phrasing relating a character to Hickman than "suggested", which to me seems a lot more vague. Suggestion can be anything. And I don't see the weakness in an overstatement.

Ok, but "suggested to her by Hickman" could also refer as much to his life, circumstances, or acts as to using him as a character archetype in entirely dissimilar circumstances without any reference to Hickman's actual life.

I gave my suggestion of what it could be. I don't hold to Rand's views though. However, the idea that the average person has committed sins and crimes worse than murdering and dismembering a 12 year old, could arguably be an idea that the average person is too passive, or too conventional, rather than a being who strives for their potential.

I mean, in part, Rand actually sounds like she just sympathized to an extreme and odd extent with Hickman and had little to no sympathy for society. Differences in sympathy don't seem incredibly odd.


Well, you really haven't proven that Ayn Rand's system didn't change 8 years later. You've only said that there are similarities and similar arguments, but that does not mean that her system Objectivism is still consistent with Hickman.

Additionally, I have not seen many ethical systems that are perfect. Honestly, I think that the faults pushing one away from Objectivism would be much more straightforward than this act though, such as the rejection of altruism.


Well, no, the romanticized version of Hickman was in her view the epitome of the values she held at that time. Once again, I don't really see evidence that she must have been constant in her views over time, even if the same themes pop up. The earlier Rand could have had a different relationship to Nietzsche than the later Rand, so I don't see the issue.


She is arguing for some of the same values. The issue is that she also had a notion of the "good society" and I doubt that a Hickman character would fit too well in her idealized version of that.(we should ignore the question on what would really happen) I also don't see a problem with abstract value systems. There are a lot of value systems that bother me and a lot of people hold to them, but let's put it this way: if a person had a neo-Objectivism that says that Hickman's actions weren't virtuous somehow but that also said "Greed is good and altruism is bad", would you still have the objection?

I still don't think that we can jump to this conclusion too quickly on the matter. I mean, similarities in opinions does not mean samenesses, and to argue that something is the same when it could easily have evolved somewhat doesn't seem to establish anything with any certainty.


Absolutely no change in values? Zero? Zilch? So, she had espoused the exact same Objectivist system for the entire time she was alive? I think this is a bold statement, because once again, you keep on pointing to type similarities, but I think that formulation can be slightly altered to exclude Hickman as necessarily good though.


Ok? I think that a lot of people will pick and choose where they stand in Objectivism now that she's lost control of her philosophy. Additionally, as I brought up at the end, there are people who I respect who were at one point driven to do what they do because Ayn Rand inspired them to do this. It is hard then to say that the value system is unequivocally bad given that.

I don't think it proves anything about her psychology necessarily. I can see a non-psychopath identifying with a psychopath quite readily. In any case, I do think she actually had a strong moral system in her, regardless of how distorted it was. I think this would likely differentiate her from most psychopaths.


Everyone's beliefs seem obvious to them. Or at least pretty close to obvious. I used the comparison to bring up the fact that many thinkers have had weird, extreme, and somehow distasteful ideas.


But the issue has to rest on generalizability though, otherwise her espousal of this is relatively irrelevant. It becomes a brute fact without general principles underlying it.

I don't see myself as being disingenuous for approaching it this way either.


I don't think Objectivism requires murdering people. I also don't think that ethical egoism is the same as sociopathy though. I also think part of the matter is just that Ayn Rand did define her egoism in an ad hoc way against altruism(and vise versa). Finally, I don't think there is only the justification of sociopathy, some of the other things attributed to Rand are a notion of a virtuous society, a rationalist epistemology, the belief in objective reality, feminism, etc. It seems to me that you are interpreting the matter uncharitably, especially since she made distinctions between her and other egoists who have written in the past (Stirner, Nietzsche) and considered them more vulgar, given that she upheld the importance of reason.


I just think that the entire invocation of Hickman is just arbitrary. The problem likely has nothing to do with Hickman at all. You yourself brought up the issue of "value system" but the real issue is that if the issue is "value system" and it is difficult to prove that Hickman actually is part of Rand's Objectivism, then why not move to things that are less questionable in this regard?

After all, Objectivism is known for holding these statements here as central:
Metaphysics: objective reality
Epistemology: reason
Ethics: rational self-interest
Politics: individual rights and capitalism
Aesthetics: metaphysical value-judgments

It seems to me that your use of Hickman clearly stands against Rand's politics and thus can't really be a part of her system, as Hickman's actions are in some sense a violation of individual rights. Although she did apparently accept doing evil in the evil society(which she saw in our own society) as seen from her novels, this still does not outright mean that Hickman's beliefs are overly acceptable, and certainly they could not be acceptable in the notion of the good society as far as I can see it.


I don't think that her system actually defends this. There is a reason I brought up all cases and the issue of the "good society". Rand had a notion of the good society, and this notion had a very strong view of human rights. A view that was mostly based around laissez-faire capitalism. I think you also have to prove the moral necessity, recognizing that if she has beliefs that conflict with your assertion, then your efforts are somewhat flawed. This is why I moved to the "disingenuous move" of trying to generalize a principle and bring up the conflict between it and her notion of the good society.

I think the distinction between Rand and her values is quite irrelevant. I don't think anybody here personally knew Ayn Rand. Moving to this distinction doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The real issue is that I think that most people aren't approaching Rand's value as mere historical facts, but rather as some form of ideological opponent.

I tend to think its self explanatory, not in that she ever spoke a word of it but technically that she was endorsing the alphas of society. That's an aspect of evolutionary/eugenic health, I don't think she was quite endorsing Spartan eugenicism ethics but the effect was in the direction of favoring the genetically healthy and encouraging breeding of the genetically healthy just by the sheer coincidence that - the haves are what people want to be with. If an alpha guy ends up thinking with his dick - it gets the desired result. If a girl ends up falling for a guy over power or money its the desired result - as in there's a reason we do things like this, our genes create that push.

Yes, I'm sure it is a projection but, most things in general have some kind of evolutionary frame of reference and talking about what to do with the gifted, what to do with the average, what to do with the infirmed, cuts directly to the core of species and ongoing health of species. With her atheism there isn't much room for other theories and it seems highly coincidental that she'd talk so much about human traits that are largely genetic in nature and the way society should manage its relations over such issues. That might be a very dumbed down and laymen's way of looking at it but, then again admittedly I'm speaking as a laymen.

I did not object, I merely clarified. Your comments left me unsure as to whether you believed she had attempted to write a book about Hickman (his life, circumstances or crimes), or attempted to base characters on Hickman.

The initial point I had made was a critique of the moral valuating that lead Rand to conclude that Hickman's acts were commendable while society's condemnation was hypocrisy from those who have committed worse sins and crimes. I consider any moral valuation system that results in considering the average member of society a worse criminal and sinner than Hickman problematic. Your comments do not alter my concerns on this account, or appear to address them so far as I can see.

Partial views are so often misleading. In full, she admired the man specifically because he murdered then dismembered the body of an innocent 12 year old school girl for fun.

You have not really proved that there was a change.


Well between unequivocally bad and perfect there are a number of other states.

And that romanticization was based on the fact that he had kidnaped a 12 year old school girl for his own selfish gratification and then murdered her for the gratifying fun of it, before dismembering and mutilating the corpse. These acts caused her to romanticize Hickman because they epitomized her notion of a real man as per her value system and hence she romanticized Hickman as being the epitomy of her notion of a "real man" and her values and ideals.


I see no evidence to assume that she changed her views as is pertinent to her admiration of Hickman and the reasons for this as pertains to her value system. I can see why she might try to dress this all up as more palatable since she knew very well wider society was not willing to accept that such acts as Hickmans were morally desirable.


I cannot judge any view I would have of some other system I know not the details of.


I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that they changed, and whether or not they did, I still cannot see any coherent or non-objectional (to my own sensibilities) application of objectivism.

Note that I did not make any claim about Rand's entire objectivist value system not changing, merely those values and idealizations on which she based her evaluation of Hickman's conduct as morally good.

Objectivism is supposed to be a moral philosophy and I cannot see how it can be coherently applied without coming to the conclusion that if you want to murder someone, doing so would serve your interests and you can, that therefore morally you should. That people you respect were at one point "driven" to do what they do because Ayn Rand inpsired them does not make it in the least bit difficult for me to say her value system is unequivocally bad (although you might have noticed I have not actually asserted any such thing), and even if it did, unadvisable, undesirable and a whole slew of other states exist outside the scope of "desirable, good, appropriate, acceptable", without necessarily falling into the category "unequivocally bad".


I am no more interested in her psychology now than I was when I stated my lack of interest in her psychology earlier in the thread.


Right, well that might address a point I had raised about Rand not being a thinker by at least demonstrating that she could not be ruled out as a potential thinker merely on the basis that she held weird, extreme or somehow distasteful ideas, but only if I had raised such a point.


No, the values, moral axioms/reasoning that led to the conclusion that Hickman's acts were praiseworthy have to be generalizable. The fact is that Rand admired this man for these acts because they specifically epitomized the generalized values and ideals that she held and espoused. That not all murders are as bad as Hickmans is a complete irrelevancy.

Aha.

Indeed, if you do not feel like murdering someone or no one you feel like murdering is weaker than you and susceptible to being murdered by you, or murdering someone would otherwise not serve or would be contrary to one's self interests, then it would be morally acceptable to not murder anyone.


I do not see why it is uncharitible to not esteem a value system whereby altruism is construed as a moral wrong, and whereby its inventor and chief advocate herself considered the proper conclusions of that value system to be the glorification of the muder of school girls, even if despite her apparent intellectual paucity she claimed herself comparitively less crude than others because she upholds the importance of reason. Maybe she really valued reason, or maybe she was just too egotistical to not make a favourable comparison of herself in respect of others. I actually do not particularly care.

I do not see what is arbitrary about using Rand's private journal writings as they pertain to her value system and her own application of it, to assist in interpreting and evaluating that same value system. It seems rather sensible to me.

Of course the problem is not Hickman, who existed quite independently of Rand's value system. The problem is the value system itself and the evaluation of Hickman as morally good for having murdered a 12 year old school girl is simply an example of what Rand apparently intended with the value system as she herself perceived it.

As to why discuss Hickman? Because it is interesting, something I did not know before and therefore something I was inclined to read about and consider discussing as a result of this thread (wherein I first became aware of these particular facts). Because other aspects have been talked about a lot more in discussions I have observed or participated in and as such are not currently so interesting to me.

Rand's own value system is contrary to Rand's own value system. Rational self-interest requires that if you can serve your interests by violating the rights of someone else, then that is what you must do. Note that rational self-interest takes primacy over individual rights which only exist in so far as they might serve rational self interest.

Rational self interest and individual rights are actually in conflict since individual rights while they may serve self interest generally, often curtail self-interest specifically. Hickman's self interest was to get some money and if he could do it without getting caught, anyone else's individual rights would be in conflict with this, even if individual rights might generally be in Hickman's self interest.

Because he got caught. If Hickman's rational self interests could have been served without getting caught, then this takes precedence over individual rights of others as they only exist to serve rational self interest.


The good society according to Rand is one where self interest takes precedence above all else. Laissez-faire capitalism so far as I can see is a means to this end only, and individual rights merely a means to this end in so far as they are, but if self interest is to be adhered to, then indvidual rights would have to necessariy be dispensible in at least some instances.


I am not sure why you think that is what you are doing. All you did so far as I can see, was suggest that not every murder is the worst act you can think of...


I am approaching them as some form of ideology which is entirely appropriate so far as I can see.

Ok? And this does not require an evolutionary ethic. Endorsing the alphas of society can be just that. I don't see it as self-explanatory. Especially given that you are citing a belief in Darwinism rather than the implicit Darwinism put on her by her psychology.


Well, they can be reinterpreted through evolution, but there is a difference between projecting and interpreting. You were saying that Rand was X. Not that Rand could be seen as X. The issue is that with each projection, there are an infinite other kinds of projections. I mean, to me it seems the simplest to say that she hated the Russian revolution and became as anti-socialist as she could. This invokes less speculation, and can be justified by facts on her life.


With her atheism there is infinite room for other theories. There are Kantians, Utilitarians, sadists, Rawlsians, etc, etc.

I also don't see the coincidence. She talks about human traits that have to do with inventiveness and individuality, alphaness, and whether these are genetic or not, they could be identified pretty easily by her alphaness.

I don't see the inherent problem though. Moral beliefs that value actions and agency above conformity do not seem problematic to me, so by pointing out that Rand was likely going that route, I actually would have more sympathy.

After all, some thinkers, such as Soren Kierkegaard have stressed the ethics of the "leap of faith", which as many have pointed out is a move that leads naturally into justification of suicide bombers.



However, in spite of this I am very sympathetic to the Kierkegaardian ethic and have at times drifted close to thinking it is relatively correct in some sense. The view that Kierkegaard can never be correct in some sense on this matter is something I actually consider somewhat degenerate.


And you are being less misleading? The entire reason to make the matter graphic is to avoid abstractly reasoning about the issue and instead move to emotional responses. I don't see myself as more misleading than you are.


I don't have to prove there was a change. I have to bring up the possibility. Once the matter is possible, then your invocation remains on questionable epistemic grounds. That being said, I bring up issues of the ideal Randian society with its notions of rights partially to suggest that there is a difference. Your attempts to avoid a more systematic engagement of Objectivism don't strike me as a good way to approach the matter.


I know, and I have brought up the horrible consequences of/ideas in a number of ethical theories, so that the issue can be more carefully evaluated.


Ok? In once sense though we can argue that he didn't completely uphold her version of a "real man", as she also calls him a failure who was too weak to succeed. Additionally, I did bring in the time delay issue here as well.


I see no evidence to assume that the views are the same though, and your entire case is built upon sameness, not on type similarities.

Also, if she dressed it all up, then that is a real change to be regarded. Objectivism isn't that exact thing that Rand thinks, but rather it is more intimately related to what Rand expresses.


Clarify.


I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that they have not changed though. Given that most people's views change over time, the notion that Ayn Rand was the one person who stayed constant is a rather questionable assumption. Your attempt to say "they must not have changed though" is relatively ad hoc, and likely a mistaken invocation of the assumption of ceteris paribus.

You'll have to explain yourself better, as this really seems to be the real issue here, not what Rand thought about Hickman at one point in time.


Ok, but then again, who is to say that those have been constant? Even if they are similar in part, does this mean that Rand's philosophy is meaningless? She believes in agency over mediocrity, and a lot of thinkers have expressed ideas like this even if somewhat tamer than Rand's notion. I mean, the entire notion of "go after your dreams and don't listen to anybody else" also tends to logically lead to this kind of violence. The notion "be critical of everything" tends to lead to epistemic skepticism. These are standard messages in our society though.


Well, ok, but you do realize that you are basically trying to dance around some wishy-washy position with some questionable assertions rather than really getting to the heart of the matter, or even to address her philosophy itself directly despite doing this indirectly.

In any case, Objectivists have actually answered your concern about murder with a firm denial of the matter. In the Ethics of Selfishness, actions such as murder and other crimes are denied as moral because they are parasitic and destructive to the ethical importance of life:
"If some men attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims, only by the men who choose to think and to produce the goods which they, the looters, are seizing. Such looters are parasites incapable of survival, who exist by destroying those who are capable, those who are pursuing a course of action proper to man."

And that this kind of behavior is beneath that of how a man should live based upon what a man is:
"The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals."

Additionally, Rand's notion of happiness requires upholding productivity, individuality, and a trader's perspective.
"Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. If a man values productive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life. But if a man values destruction, like a sadist—or self-torture, like a masochist—or life beyond the grave, like a mystic—or mindless “kicks,” like the driver of a hotrod car—his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure: it is merely a moment’s relief from their chronic state of terror."

" Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness."

"The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."

And Rand even openly spoke against any initiation of violence:
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... ist_ethics (Note: I am late in bringing this up partially because many of Rand's works aren't available online and because even though I thought she dealt with the matter, I didn't remember it as I didn't consider her method of dealing with it compelling, when all things are taken into account, I am somewhat of a critic of Rand)

So, really, you might question this, but Rand's own words in her later writing that was explicitly ethical actually proclaims that her stance is anti-murder. So, arguing that Rand was pro-murder is quite questionable. The fact that you don't know this though, and yet can quote at length from her journal though is one of the reasons I've questioned your motives. Rand's "The Ethics of Selfishness" is one of the major published works on hers about these matters, and would have primacy over unpublished journals on the matter of Ayn Rand's ethical system.


Well, ok?

I just bring this up because you made that comment, and because really seem to be making a lot of leaps rather than making a straight-forward case about the matter. I mean, I will freely admit that the foundation of her ethical system is ad hoc, whereas the foundations of truth should be absolute according to her own system, which by itself invalidates objectivism.

I don't see your objections as having much strength, though. There are a lot of ethical systems with absurd outcomes. The fact that you are criticizing Rand as having one absurd outcome to me just seems to show either a lack of knowledge or bias and maybe both. I brought out the issue about the history of ethical thought because there are a lot of people with absurd ideas. A lot of people are utilitarian, even though this too can justify murder and injustice. A lot of people like Peter Singer's animal rights even though his beliefs lead to the idea that we can kill infants without much concern. A lot of people are Christian even though Christianity openly justifies genocides.


I wasn't bringing up that not all murders were as bad as Hickman's. I was bringing up the notion that Hickman's murder does not mean that Rand's system supports murderers. In any case, I think I ended up justifying the idea that Rand's values actually later disagreed with Hickman's murder through quoting Rand's own writing.


I rebutted this claim earlier.


You're extrapolating, a lot, to an extreme extent, and even using rhetoric, and not basing your conclusions on her actual public works. This means that you are really being uncharitable. The fact that you don't see this is a sign of bias. As it stands though, I've already shown that she does not uphold the glorification of the murder of school girls, meaning that her value systems have changed.


Because you don't know the rest of her writings well, and that's why it is arbitrary. If you knew her writings, then you would instead be addressing her actual stated beliefs on these issues, rather than trying to draw out a type similarity from a journal.


Ok, I quoted it. I gave you a link to read from. Evaluate my source. You are extrapolating from a small part and ignoring a major part of Rand's thinking, which is her political theory. She is well-known for her politics, so this oversight does not seem to be a simple thing.


Nope. She explicitly rejects your characterization of her system. Her qualification of egoism as "rational" actually modifies the egoism.


And this isn't correct according to Ayn Rand. The later Rand *must* on some level consider Hickman to be a "looter", and while his defiance of society might get him more respect, his status as a looter is explicit.


Except Rand rejects this. You are criticizing a system that you made up and attributed to Ayn Rand.


Nope, it is the actualization of this. She upheld that self-interest and the interest of others didn't actually conflict.


You misread me. I suggested that the notion of murder isn't generalizable to other circumstances, so even if Rand upheld one, she doesn't necessarily uphold all of them.


Not really.

But right, I think now that I've gotten around to finding the real issue, which isn't the historical matter, but objectivism, and given that I found one of Rand's essays(a finding I didn't expect), I don't think your position has much strength left in it.

I actually do not see that it is much of an issue at all. I did not find Objectivism a useful value system before I knew of her opinion on Hickman, and I find that this opinion of Rand's is very interesting given some of the problems I had earlier perceived Objectivism as being characterized by. You seemed to claim to not understand why people would consider her views on Hickman relevant to anything. I have tried to explain this for you. If you do not like or accept my explanation, well I am none the poorer even if you are no better off for my attempt.


If you think I have not encountered the content of the quotes before, I doubt that, they certainly sound very familiar to me and do not include anything that I have not previously encountered and considered (and discussed in rather repeatitive detail previously, back when I was not bored nearly titless by general discussion of Rand's philosophy). As to how I can quote from her journal, that is very easy. Just google Hickman and Rand as I did after reading this thread.

I only joined in this discussion because it did not appear to be yet another repeatitive argument about Rand's philosophy, but rather a discussion of novel (to me) information gleaned from her private journals from before she got herself published.

I also happen to be of the view that peoples' publicly published writings are not always as honest or revealing of their thought processes and intentions as their personal journal writings.

I didn't think you did find Objectivism a very useful value system. I just don't think that Hickman is sufficient to honestly reject a system. I mean, what is required is continuity of thought, and this is a questionable assumption. However, if one does not hold this assumption well, the matter then becomes just plain ad hominem.


Well, I am not surprised that they sound familiar, but they did have to be somewhat unfamiliar for you to use the arguments you were using. I also didn't say that quoting from her journal was the most difficult thing, only that it represents an imbalance of knowledge that reflects poorly on intellectual honesty.

Well, I still am sticking to the position that all that the journal can really show is her private character, not her public philosophy. I can see how one can label Rand to have a mental condition on the basis of her journaling, but I am cynical to that project as well.

I thought you were also of the opinion that Ayn Rand doesn't matter so much as her system, Objectivism. It seems to me that her thought processes, no matter what they are, also wouldn't matter as much as her published writings in terms of saying what Objectivism is. Especially journal writings that are not written at the same time as her published writings.

I do not believe that I ever claimed that Hickman was a reason to reject a system, rather that if a system finds what he did morally good that this is a significant problem and one that is incompatible with my personal requirements.

No they do not; being familiar and being accepted as true or coherent are not the same thing. I see no particular reason to pay heed to the plug-ons necessary to get the principles working. Generally plug-ins should add functionality, not be necessary for it. Obviously the thing don't fly if pursuing rational self interest conflicts with individual rights, but simply asserting they cannot (conflict with each other) without showing that this is necessarily implied by (rather than a necessity for the plausibility of) the principles, or demonstrating that this is true in fact, is simply positing a wish list as a begged question.

I see no reason to consider the principles coherent as a result of the addition of a bunch of special pleading, question begging and fantastic and dubious assertions about the qualities of things.

Or maybe it reflects the subject of the thread, or the thing I was interested in discussing...

I have not claimed that they do say what Objectivism is. I have claimed that the same value and ideation that resulted in the positive valuation of Hickman occurs in Objectivism (rational self interest). Rand's description in her journal certainly more closely matches what is evoked in her fictional works, and frankly bears a much closer semblence to reality than the unsubstantiated claims she makes about Objectivism, that while necessary to render the principles coherent, are actually not derivable from them, and have never been shown to my satisfaction to be factually true.

I find these journal entries interesting because it is the kind of outcome that her novels bring to mind, it is an example of exactly the kind of conflict (between two of the principles) that I perceive exists in reality, despite Objectivist just-so-tale assertions to the contrary.

I provided explicit writings by Ayn Rand that seem to condemn people such as Hickman for doing what they did, so the appeal to that is useless.


Yes, Rand's statements absolutely do have very apparent conflict with the assertion of Hickman as moral, if you cannot see this, then I would suggest that you either get glasses or learn to read. They directly conflict with your claims. They are also explicit statements of Ayn Rand's philosophy and what it means, they are not plug-ons, as a "plug-on" would have to be something outside of Rand's philosophy to justify it. So, if, for example, Leonard Peikoff wrote some "ethical clarifications" to Objectivism, you would not have to accept this. However, if Ayn Rand writes about her philosophy, explaining what she means, then this is very relevant.

This is also not a begged question. Ayn Rand stated what she meant by "rational self-interest" and that it required productivity and achievement, and so her assertion that "rational interests of men do not clash" is not just a begged question or assertion or wish-list, but rather it follows from her past statements. One can say that her philosophy is in contradiction with reality, or that it redefines words in an ad hoc manner, but those are different objections.


Pandd, a set of principles is coherent if the premises that that the principles are based upon are logically coherent.

So, if we say this:
Socrates is a bear
Bears are immortal
Therefore Socrates is immortal

It is perfectly coherent.

So, yes, you absolutely do have to regard principles as coherent if they bring in fantastic and dubious assertions, to fix all of their problems, just as the argument that Socrates is an immortal bear is also coherent.


No, it represents dishonesty to a great extent. It does reflect the subject of the thread and also to some extent the thing you wanted to discuss, however, your extrapolation is not honest if you are asserting it over the clearest statements of the subject matter in question.


Ok, there are some similarities? I don't really know what you are trying to get at here. Her narratives diverge from her philosophy, therefore her philosophy is wrong?


I don't think it takes much to point out that Objectivism has a lot of problems as a philosophy. I just don't see this as particularly relevant. It involves too much speculation to get much truth out of it.

I HATE Ayn Rand.

"I'm alright Jack so screw you"

Perhaps her parents sacrificed their wishes to raise her. Screw them, who cares?

If men on a sinking ship stood back and allowed women and children on the lifeboats then they were fools..

If a wounded man said "Run and I will hold the enemy back as long as I can" then he is a fool.

The Bible says "Greater love hath no man than this, that he will lay down his life for his friends"

Ayn Rand. Rot in hell you selfish b***h.