Comments on: Second Letter to a Young Objectivist: Human Sociality

By: A Lonesome Traveler in Cyberspace « Incredible Wampum

A Lonesome Traveler in Cyberspace « Incredible Wampum — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:39:21 +0000

[...] “Letters to a Young Objectivist,” where he picks apart Objectivism in regards to human sociality and ethics, among other things. I will always have a fondness for Rand because she was among the [...]

By: Roderick Fitts

Roderick Fitts — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:27:01 +0000

Why are you blaming Objectivism for something it never intended to do? Rand’s concerns were Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics, not Anthropology, Psychology, or Biology. Since Objectivist Ethics is rational egoism, it dealt with individual primarily, while the Politics expressed on one’s dealings with others. A simple answer to how humans should deal with one another is the “trader principle”, but even this does not exclude being charitable.
I think you’ve gotten “human nature” mixed up with human preferences, or something like it. Our human nature is a being of “volitional consciousness”, meaning primarily choosing our ideas and actions; being social and friendly are consequences of that.

By: Roderick Fitts

Roderick Fitts — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:27:00 +0000

By: Max

Max — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:41:00 +0000

Happiness

by Randy Ayn

Dominique rifled through the medicine chest.

“Where is my goddamn Zoloft?” she mumbled.

As Dominique pushed the cabinet door to, she glimpsed Roark’s face behind her in the mirror. He had come from the quarry. He was dirty from toiling and using the PortaJohns. Dominique could see a hint of disappointment in his Apollonian face.

“Fuck off,” she said and gulped down a pill.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:00:00 +0000

Robert Campbell wrote: “You can’t take the drawings in the movie as indicative of the kinds of buildings Howard Roark was designing. Supposedly Rand had nothing to do with those drawings and was disappointed when she saw them.”

You’re quite right. Rand hated the drawings, but was not asked for her approval. People too often blame the writer of a book for the failings of its adaptors.

Barbara

By: Barbara

Barbara — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:51:00 +0000

Jacob, you wrote: “The only scene with children I remember from either major novel is a couple of kids scampering around Happy Valley. They might as well have been animatronic museum pieces for all the exploration Rand put into their psychology.”

Is every novel required to explore child psychology? I don’t recall anyone criticizing Shakespeare for failing to do so.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:17:00 +0000

Very shrewd and civilly-argued piece, Will. I think one of the problems with Objectivism (of the capital O variety, anyway), is that it is that it misses a lot of important stuff out. There is a lot about Rand’s writings I admire and have learned about, but there are holes too. To give credit where it is due, though, some of the smarter folk out there in the Randian camp, like David Kelley or Sciabarra are doing something about it.

You are quite right to locate some of the non-intellectual sources of happiness. Our understanding of what makes humans what they are in some ways is still in its infancy. Lots of good stuff out there to study.

One quibble — I don’t think objectivists have dismissed family life per se or the enjoyment of being in a group. The key of course is being in a group where one has the choice to leave if necessary. For a child that obviously is pretty difficult. Sure, we value the love of a good family — but not at any price. Freedom to choose is what counts. And Rand championed that.

By: Luka Yovetich

Luka Yovetich — Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:01:00 +0000

Hell yeah. Bill! Billy Boy. Bill-meister! I like it!

By: Aaron Eads

Aaron Eads — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:57:00 +0000

Yeah Will, it’s me. Great blog. (We used to call him Bill!)

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:58:00 +0000

OK, you’re all right.

By: Aeon Skoble

Aeon Skoble — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:50:00 +0000

“Roark is in effect arguing, like a good leftist, that people on the market have the wrong preferences and must be corrected by his superior vision.”
Not at all. He just doesn’t want to be forced to build according to the dictates of a style other than his own. He likes to build a certain way, and if people want those buildings, great, if not, he’ll find other work. “I don’t build in order to have clients, I have clients in order to build.” That line, and the line about a building having integrity “just like a man, and just as seldom” point towards an allegorical reading, not as a mindless endorsement of modernism for its own sake.

By: Luka Yovetich

Luka Yovetich — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:19:00 +0000

Will,

I think what would make Roark a good leftist is if he wanted to have the government force his taste on others.

I think it’s perfectly okay to be disgusted by the tastes of others. Just don’t force them to change their tastes!

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:07:00 +0000

Aeon,

You’re right, but I still think there is in fact something very perverse about Howard Roark and the idea of the individualist architect hero. The point of a building is not to embody the architect’s fantasies about how people should live, but actually to accomodate and facilitate living given the way people in fact live. If people like non-functional ornamentation that references the past (I know I do) then they should have it. Roark is in effect arguing, like a good leftist, that people on the market have the wrong preferences and must be corrected by his superior vision.

Robert,

I’m sure you’re right. That said, how come we hear so little about Howard Roark interiors?

By: Robert Campbell

Robert Campbell — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:54:00 +0000

Aaron, Will, Aeon,

Wait a minute…

You can’t take the drawings in the movie as indicative of the kinds of buildings Howard Roark was designing. Supposedly Rand had nothing to do with those drawings and was disappointed when she saw them.

An obvious model for Roark was Frank Lloyd Wright. (Consider the description of Monadnock Valley in the book.) Fire away at Wright if you want… But there’s not much reason to think that Rand had Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier in mind.

Robert Campbell

By: Aeon Skoble

Aeon Skoble — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:28:00 +0000

Aaron, Wil- I was enjoying the thoughtful thread about theory/practice and family life, but you lost me with the architecture slam. As I took it, the modern architecture was a metaphor for individualism — it’s not that we’re all supposed to live in Bauhaus buildings. The Fountainhead isn’t about homeowners, it’s about an architect, but it’s not about modernism per se. They keep telling Roark to (a) build to suit lowest-common-denominator tastes and (b)in essence, copy the designs of others. His response is, I’ll build according to my own vision, thanks. I took Rand to be using this as a device to dramatize something about being an individual, more than as a brief for why should all be in modernist housing. It’s true that the buildings in the film of the Foutainhead aren’t that attractive, but the allegorical point is their originality.