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.