Fascism and Objectivism
Karen White
I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
including Ayn Rand herself.
Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
such charges?
Mike Smith
Quite simply, most people don't know what fascism is. They note that the
Soviets fought the Nazis in WWII, and assume that fascism and Communism must
be opposites. Therefore, anyone who is anti-Communist must be fascist.
Whereas in fact, fascism and Communism are just two slightly different faces
of collectivism.
--
Mike Smith. No, the other one.
Christopher Roberson
:
: I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
: fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
: including Ayn Rand herself.
: Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
: such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
: of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
: such charges?
I can think of three likely targets:
1. Her hectoring intellectual style. Calling people who disagree with you
"irrational" and "thugs" is not very endearing. This is not political
fascism, of course.
2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types; her villains
are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men. For decades, the
latter was a common stereotype that allowed writers to hint that the
villain was a Jew.
Rand, of course, was Jewish herself, so at most she can be accused of
being a self-hating Jew, if that.
3. Her aesthetics are pretty much identical to Fascist aesthetics. I'm
referring to the sort of art that was idealized by the Fascist regime in
Italy and the Nazi government in Germany. They both had pronounced
affinities for Romanticism.
There are three reasons for you, none of them political.
--
Christopher Roberson
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~robchr/
AynRand12
>I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
>fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
>including Ayn Rand herself.
>Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
>such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
>of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
>such charges?
Dishonesty. There is simply no way one could honestly twist Ayn Rand's words
that much.
"No man may initiate - do you hear me? No man may start the use of physical
force against others." (Galt's Speech, FNI, 133).
"We are radicals for *Capitalism*."
If you want a more explicit statement of hers rejecting Facism read her
pamphlet, "The Facist New Frontier."
I'm not a psychologist and so I will not try to guess the motive of people who
call Ayn Rand a facist. But, I will say that there is no honest way for a
person to come to such a conclusion.
Regards,
Don Watkins
John Alway
> I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
> fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
> including Ayn Rand herself.
> Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
> such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
> of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
> such charges?
Probably just an irrational lashing out at something they don't
understand. Rather than *think*, they prefer to attack. Every time
I've taken anybody up on it I find there is no there there, and I've
challenged many people over the years. What is ironic, however, is
that this charge usually comes from leftists who *do* support all manner
of fascism, and they accuse more than just Objectivists of that same
charge.
...John
There
once
was
a
bot
named
Mack,
who
needed
an
occasional
binary
snack.
Jaffo
:
:I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
:fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
:including Ayn Rand herself.
:
:Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
:such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
:of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
:such charges?
It's really just a reference to people and organizations who place
obedience to authority over their own reason.
Jaffo
--
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions.
Small people always do that, but the really great make you
feel that you, too, can become great." -- Mark Twain
Karen White
the "esstentials of fascism"?
For example, you pointed out that the use of force is something
advocated by Fascists, and rejected by Rand. So there is one
clear distinction, and I think a very important one (ie, I think
that the use of force in advancing one's goals is advocated and
encouraged by Fascism, and that this is a central defining
feature of fascism.)
Are there other 'essential' bits associated with fascism that, at
a superficial level, might resemble a position of Objectivism?
AynRand12 wrote:
>
> >I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
> >fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
> >including Ayn Rand herself.
>
> >Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
> >such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
> >of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
> >such charges?
>
Jaffo
:Maybe it would help if someone could present a brief statement of
:the "esstentials of fascism"?
Fascism, 20th-century form of totalitarian dictatorship that sought to
create a viable society by strict regimentation of national and
individual lives; conflicting interests would be adjusted by total
subordination to the service of the state and unquestioning loyalty to
its leader.
http://www.encarta.com/find/article.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=04196000&search=fascism#Top
John Alway
> Maybe it would help if someone could present a brief statement of
> the "esstentials of fascism"?
Fascism is the indirect control of private property by government,
with the idea that the state owns the individual. Ostensibly you own
your property, but, in fact, the government controls your property, and
thus you.
Notice how leftists today very much believe in this (all of the
alphabet agencies should give you ample evidence of this!), though the
vast majority have probably never concretized it this vividly in their
minds.
...John
DSANDIN
>I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
>fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
>including Ayn Rand herself.
>
>Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
>such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
>of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
>such charges?
This is an age of extensive moral relativism and subjectivism. Ayn Rand
said (and proved) that we can be objective and certain, in all areas of
knowledge. She did not hesitate to apply that principle to moral
evaluation in particular. To relativists and subjectivists, claims to
objectivity and certainty regarding how people ought to think and act,
and how they ought to be evaluated, sound like authoritarianism.
Certainty is equated with soulless intolerance and the will to control
and exploit others. To a subjectivist, a critical moral judgment is an
act of aggression. (Unless it's by a subjectivist against an
objectivist. Then it's okay because it _feels_ okay.) The distinction
between judgment and force is literally obliterated. If there can be no
objective standards, if reason cannot be used to determine the right
moral course, and if in fact there is only subjective justification
because reason is not applicable -- then an insistence on judging by,
and living up to, objective standards can only be a cover for some form
of subjectivism that is seeking to impose its raw will on others by
force. In our culture, the most horrific concrete example of that
practice is generally considered to be Naziism.
Note also that in this age of widespread adherence to altruism as the
subjectivist's usually leftist creed, you also must be an evil fascist
if your morality opposes sacrifice -- all sacrifice, in principle,
but to the point here, sacrifice of the stronger to the weaker. The
subjectivist altruist has no grounds for crucially distinguishing this
opposition from advocacy of sacrifice of the weaker to the stronger --
another widely understood aspect of Naziism.
--- Dean
Mark A. Peter
> I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
> fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
> including Ayn Rand herself.
>
> Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
> such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
> of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
> such charges?
It's very simple. Ayn Rand is an absolutist with regard to truth and
morality. There are certain mentalities who feel that anyone who claims
that x is absolutely true, or that x is absolutely right or wrong, is
trying to force something upon them. Somehow, they feel that their
"freedom" rests upon moral ambiguity. These people will see absolutely
no difference between Ayn Rand and a Christian fundamentalist (which is
their archetype of ultimate evil). The content of Ayn Rand's actual
poltical positions is entirely irrelevant to them, because they have
already been scared off by the moral absolutism.
Even if such a person knew her political positions, such knowledge would
be unlikely to change his mind, because, being a
not-very-intellectually-sharp left-winger, he would be very unlikely to
understand the difference between physical force and economic power.
Thus, beating someone over the head with a club and taking away
someone's welfare check are viewed as being in the same category:
oppression by the strong of the weak, which to him means fascism.
Mark Peter
John Alway
[...]
> This is an age of extensive moral relativism and subjectivism. Ayn Rand
> said (and proved) that we can be objective and certain, in all areas of
> knowledge. She did not hesitate to apply that principle to moral
> evaluation in particular.
That's a good point. This usually leads to the "dogmatism" charge,
which then would lead to the idea of ruling by an iron fist. Though it
is interesting that when I challenge people on it I don't ever recall
anyone explicitly stating the point you make. This could be because I'm
dealing with second handers _of_ second handers!
...John
Mike Rael
The problem began with Rand's "indirect" means of
characterization in her novels, giving heroes as archetypes rather than
as folks dealing with their own self-doubts, moments of cowardice as well
as those of courage.
This combined with her lack of empathy for the numerous villains
she uncovered in real life, giving her attitude towards those she
disagreed with a sense of self-righteousness, of "you are wrong and I
have no better solution to give," that is fundamental to fascism. This
was not her attitude, in the main, but focusing on her intemperate
qualities, and the lack of depth in characterization of her heroes, could
lead to that conclusion--and it has!
As her movement progressed, she became consumed with the idea of
creating a New Order, where folks thought the right thoughts and behaved
the right way. Books were rated as to how closely they were
"Objectivist." Reading the "wrong" material was discouraged unless
one's stated purpose was to "integrate" it with the truths Rand
discovered--i.e., reading for new knowledge from the wrong people,
knowledge that could upset the prevailing system of ideas, was
actively discouraged. "Loaded" language was used, so that
"selfishness" or "rational" or "capitalism" acquired new meanings, the
better to inculcate Objectivists with the idea that they had inherited
a Special Truth unknown to others.
People who disagreed with her were excommunicated. People
who were in doubt were given "philosophic therapy" by Branden, with her
active approval. The notion of a New World Order fashioned by a
charismatic leader who supposedly has no inner doubts as he or she
tinkers with the lives of others--that is all compatible with the idea of
a Fascist society.
When Branden was excommunicated under a barrage of false charges
of financial "misapplication" and lieing to her, his supporters got
together against her supporters, to produce the kinds of factions and
frictions that are endemic to Fascism.
Rand's actual *ideas* lay almost buried beneath the insults
bandied back and forth. Happily, they are always available to the person
interested in picking up her books and willing to put forth the energy to
read between the lines.
best wishes,
Mike
Karen White (ji...@myriad.net) wrote:
:
: I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
: fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
: including Ayn Rand herself.
: Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
: such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
: of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
: such charges?
--
Mike Rael, MS, instructional technology
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
owner, COACHING BY PHONE, the rapid way to raise reality-based self-esteem
Mike Rael
While I don't agree with all of your charges--Rand's ethic was
essentially the Jewish one of being strong and humane while her aesthetic
was opposed to the Wagnerian "death-worship":))--I am most pleased that
you are trying to look at her or her philosophy *critically*.
It serves absolutely no purpose to Objectivism to dust annoying
details under the rug, feeding our own vanity but accomplishing little else.
After all, existence exists:)
best wishes,
Mike
Christopher Roberson (rob...@umich.edu) wrote:
: Karen White <ji...@myriad.net> wrote:
: :
: : I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
: : fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
: : including Ayn Rand herself.
: : Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
: : such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
: : of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
: : such charges?
: I can think of three likely targets:
: 1. Her hectoring intellectual style. Calling people who disagree with you
: "irrational" and "thugs" is not very endearing. This is not political
: fascism, of course.
: 2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types; her villains
: are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men. For decades, the
: latter was a common stereotype that allowed writers to hint that the
: villain was a Jew.
: Rand, of course, was Jewish herself, so at most she can be accused of
: being a self-hating Jew, if that.
: 3. Her aesthetics are pretty much identical to Fascist aesthetics. I'm
: referring to the sort of art that was idealized by the Fascist regime in
: Italy and the Nazi government in Germany. They both had pronounced
: affinities for Romanticism.
: There are three reasons for you, none of them political.
: --
: Christopher Roberson
: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~robchr/
jal...@icsi.net
Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
RE: Objectivism charged with being fascist. Why?
> I can think of three likely targets:
>
> 1. Her hectoring intellectual style. Calling people who disagree with you
> "irrational" and "thugs" is not very endearing. This is not political
> fascism, of course.
This may be true tangentially in that she was willing to judge people
morally. I think you'll find that Dean Sandin and Mark Peter have nailed
this one down more precisely.
> 2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types; her villains
> are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men. For decades, the
> latter was a common stereotype that allowed writers to hint that the
> villain was a Jew.
John Galt's physical description was mindful to me of Doc Savage (aka The
Man of Bronze) more than a "blue-eyed Nordic type". (This, btw, made me
wonder if she was familiar with the character.) Franciso D'anconia was
surely not blond and blue eyed. I'd imagine he had more of a latin look.
And wasn't Roark red headed?
Btw, here is part of Ayn Rand's description of John Galt:
"...his body had the hardness, the gaunt, tensile strength, the clean
precision of a foundry casting, he looked as if he were poured out of metal,
but some dimmed, soft-lustered metal, like an aluminum-copper alloy, the
color of his skin blending with the chestnut-brown of his hair, the loose
strands of the hair shading from brown to gold in the sun, and his eyes
completing the colors, as the one part of the casting left undimmed and
harshly lustrous: his eyes were the deep, dark green of light glinting on
metal..." from the chapter "Atlantis".
I think Rearden was blond, though I don't remember a full description of
his physical characteristics. The one person who definitely fits the
stereotype is Ragnar. He was a hero, but certainly not the primary one.
This blond, blue-eyed idea seems to be completely wrong, Chris.
> Rand, of course, was Jewish herself, so at most she can be accused of
> being a self-hating Jew, if that.
Well, not that either. She was violently against racism.
> 3. Her aesthetics are pretty much identical to Fascist aesthetics. I'm
> referring to the sort of art that was idealized by the Fascist regime in
> Italy and the Nazi government in Germany. They both had pronounced
> affinities for Romanticism.
To some extent this is true. Brian Yoder made a study of Nazi and Soviet
art and placed it up on his website. Anyone who is interested can find it
here: http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/artofnz.htm.
Brian covers art more broadly here http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/art.htm
...John
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Steve Davis
> Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
> such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
> of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
> such charges?
The 60's "New Left" radicals called practically everyone who disagreed
with them fascists, without much regard for the actual meaning of the
term. A fascist, to many, is any anti-Communist.
Steve Davis
> Maybe it would help if someone could present a brief statement of
> the "esstentials of fascism"?
Totalitarianism is the genus, the details of how the government
interferes with individual freedom is the differentia.
Objectivism is anti-Totalitarianism.
Ka6l3279
>2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types; her villains
>are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men.
Yet another stereotype of Rand. Just a little reminder:
Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
James Taggart was a tall, blue-eyed Nordic type.
--
Kathryn P. O'Mara
Ka6l3279
>I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
>fascism leveled against Objectivism
>
>Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
>such accusations?
What I understand is that the "fascism" charge first emerged in the 1950s.
Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist turned Christian wrote a scathing review
of Atlas Shrugged in National Review that accused the book of promoting fascist
ideas.
Tom Scheeler
AynRand12 wrote in message <19990205165944...@ng32.aol.com>...
>
>>I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
>>including Ayn Rand herself.
>
>
>force against others." (Galt's Speech, FNI, 133).
>
>"We are radicals for *Capitalism*."
I think this is the key: most people equate fascism with capitalism. For ex
ample, see MS-Encarta, which mentions, in it's topic about fascism, the ass
ociation between the "capitalists" (actually, the industrialists) and Musso
lini. That seems to be the prevalent view of most of the leftists that come
into this newsgroup. Typically, their knowledge is only partial at best.
Tom Scheeler
Terrence Chan
> surely not blond and blue eyed. I'd imagine he had more of a latin look.
Nobody described his appearance as Latin, yet the word applied to him, not
in its
present, but in its original sense, not pertaining to Spain, but to ancient
Rome...His features had the fine precision of sculpture. His hair was black and
straight, swept back. The suntan of his skin intensified the startling color of
his eyes: they were a pure, clear blue.
I guess he's as un-Latin as you can get, for a Latin dude. :)
--
Terrence Chan
Tom Scheeler
jal...@icsi.net wrote in message <79gbfl$1bm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> 3. Her aesthetics are pretty much identical to Fascist aesthetics. I'm
>> referring to the sort of art that was idealized by the Fascist regime in
>> Italy and the Nazi government in Germany. They both had pronounced
>> affinities for Romanticism.
>
>
> To some extent this is true. Brian Yoder made a study of Nazi and Soviet
>art and placed it up on his website. Anyone who is interested can find it
>here: http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/artofnz.htm.
I've heard that they liked classical art...because it was classical; they h
ated modern art...because it was modern. In other words, in many factors, t
hey wanted the status quo.
Just a thought.
Tom Scheeler
John Alway
[...]
> I guess he's as un-Latin as you can get, for a Latin dude. :)
Shades of gray! Yes, he was somewhat Latin.
...John
John Alway
[...]
> I've heard that they liked classical art...because it was classical; they h
> ated modern art...because it was modern. In other words, in many factors, t
> hey wanted the status quo.
> Just a thought.
I don't think your thought is wrong. I remember reading somewhere
that the Nazis generally had very parochial tastes in art. Nothing
great, nothing horrific. The folk art idea was very wide spread.
Brian has an example on his site.
...John
Christopher Roberson
: In article <1999020521...@moonpatrol.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
: Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
: RE: Objectivism charged with being fascist. Why?
:> 2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types; her villains
:> are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men. For decades, the
:> latter was a common stereotype that allowed writers to hint that the
:> villain was a Jew.
[...]
: This blond, blue-eyed idea seems to be completely wrong, Chris.
I didn't say 'blond', I said tall. And the ideal is Anglo-Saxonish: Hank.
Rearden. Howard. Roark. John. Galt.
And anyway, her villains are indeed pudgy, fussy, effeminate, dark-haired
little men. If they have money, it's not by virtue of honest labor, but by
sneaky, underhanded thievery. To any educated reader in the 1940s and
1950s, this description screamed "anti-Semitic literary depiction of a
Jew." My first impression, in any case, was that Rand was an anti-Semite;
I was awfully surprised to discover that she herself was a short, pudgy
Russian Jew.
Also note that I didn't say she was a racist; I'm just pointing out some
apparent discrepancies between Rand's official rational doctrine and what
seem to have been her deeply held aesthetic and cultural preferences.
Christopher Roberson
: Chris Roberson wrote:
:>2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types; her villains
:>are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men.
: Yet another stereotype of Rand. Just a little reminder:
: Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
: James Taggart was a tall, blue-eyed Nordic type.
Can't any of you tell the difference between 'almost all' and 'all'?
bot lines
bot lines
bot lines
Etc.
cath...@my-dejanews.com
Ka6l3279 <ka6l...@aol.com> wrote:
> What I understand is that the "fascism" charge first emerged in the 1950s.
> Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist turned Christian wrote a scathing
review
> of Atlas Shrugged in National Review that accused the book of promoting
fascist
> ideas.
Actually, I thought it was the charge that Rand was a materialist. Which
therefore made her an atheist. Which therefore made her a Communist.
Though there were references to gas chambers in that review as well.
I don't know a whole lot about Chambers other than that review, but based on
that review, I conclude that he was a putz.
And Buckley is, simply, slime for sanctioning Chambers' awful review and
reportedly never having bothered to read _Atlas Shrugged_ himself. (And he's
often hailed as a "leading intellectual of the Right." Uh, huh.)
Will White
My gut feeling is that a lot of it has to do with the idea that somehow
she wanted to overthrow the 'current system' and somehow get some kind
of elite into power.
I was curious because even a couple of the more recent references I had
read referred to her or her ideas as fascist, and I am always amazed at
the power of such labels to detract from consideration of the ideas at
hand.
Not that she didn't engage in the same kind of name calling when ideas
conflicting with hers were under scrutiny...but that's another subject!
Karen White wrote:
>
> I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
> fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
> including Ayn Rand herself.
>
> Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
Jim Klein
>>This is an age of extensive moral relativism and subjectivism. Ayn
>>Rand said (and proved) that we can be objective and certain, in all
>>areas of knowledge. She did not hesitate to apply that principle to
>>moral evaluation in particular.
>
>
>That's a good point. This usually leads to the "dogmatism" charge,
>which then would lead to the idea of ruling by an iron fist.
Then you misunderstand the "dogmatism" charge, at least when it's
levelled by folks like me. It refers _not_ to the absolutism of the
statement, but rather to the nature of the derivation of the statement.
When a statement is traceable back to the facts of reality ("The Earth
revolves around the sun."), it is absolute but not dogmatic. And yes,
certain statements may hold in the ethical realm and be absolutist and
still not dogmatic (though many--not me among them--would hold that an
absolute ethical statement is inherently dogmatic).
The reason some of the garbage spouted by ARIans ("Nonconsensual
monopoly government is a 'tenet' of Objectivism.") gets accused of
being dogmatic is because it _is_ dogmatic. It is accepted as prima
facie true regardless of what the facts are, and "certainty" is applied
to it not as a matter of logic, but as a matter of acceptance. Neither
Rand, nor the facts of reality, yield nonconsensual monopoly government
as a tenet of Objectivism.
IOW, the _approach_ used by many (not all) ARIans is the typical
faith-based approach, totally inconsistent with Objectivism. This is
demonstrably so, their cries of denial to the contrary notwithstanding.
[And save me a post, willya? Answer the damn question.]
jk
Jim Klein
<rob...@umich.edu> writes:
>
>Ka6l3279 <ka6l...@aol.com> wrote:
>: Chris Roberson wrote:
>
>:>2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types; her
>>villains are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men.
>
>: Yet another stereotype of Rand. Just a little reminder:
>: Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
>: James Taggart was a tall, blue-eyed Nordic type.
>
>Can't any of you tell the difference between 'almost all' and 'all'?
That's perhaps the oddest error I've seen you make here. A tad of the
dog that bit you, eh?
jk
Sed
quis
custodiet
ipsos
custodes.
DSANDIN
in <1999020605...@qix.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Ka6l3279 <ka6l...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: Chris Roberson wrote:
>
>:>2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types.....
>
>: Yet another stereotype of Rand. Just a little reminder:
>: Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
>: James Taggart was a tall, blue-eyed Nordic type.
>
>Can't any of you tell the difference between 'almost all' and 'all'?
By induction, Rand had no particular fixation on Nordic heroes. Roark,
by name and red hair, was implicitly of Irish extraction. D'Anconia
was decidedly of Mediterranean extraction. We can grant you Rearden
and Ragnar, but not as some concession toward a faulty identification.
Above all, take Galt. (That is Rand's intent!) The description of
Galt provided earlier in rebuttal to your hasty imputation describes an
obviously non-Nordic physical type. If anything, Rand's description is
in line with making him a new and perfect kind. Being a real person,
he had to have some specific appearance. But Rand pointedly made him
_not_ physically or ethnically specific. His character was man the
ideal type. She symbolized this by making his appearance _not_ suggest
anything specific to what we are familiar with already. She chose to
portray him as _not_ a Nordic (or any other) instance of man. Only
anti-conceptual racists seek to project a specific geographical
instance of man as the ideal type.
--- Dean
Rod Nibbe
writes:...
>This is an age of extensive moral relativism and subjectivism. Ayn Rand
>said (and proved) that we can be objective and certain, in all areas of
>knowledge.
<Muse: Ah, geez, maybe now I know where they're getting this stuff.>
Hey, Dean, I'm wondering if you would do me a favor? Would you provide
a cite (small or large, I'll do what it takes) where Ayn Rand *proves* stuff
like this. I'm involved in another thread where certain others here are
claiming that objectivists claim Ayn Rand said (either directly or implicitly
in her writing) that she *proved* the ethics of rational egoism is right.
Well, at least they're saying objectivists say she has. As someone reared in
the sciences, when I read proof, I instantly think of the formal type I saw in
advanced calculus, or maybe a formal logic course, you know. I've read most of
Rand's stuff; I don't remember any formalism like that so just what is it (and
most importantly where is it) that Ayn Rand *proved* these kinds of
metaphysical things?
Thanks in advance.
-RKN
(rni...@alask.net)
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Chris Roberson wrote:
>
> >are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men.
>
>
> Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
He was still beautiful, though. All the good guys were. And all the bad
guys were ugly. In Rand's fictional universe, you can judge people's
moral character at a glance; and in this sense it does resemble Hitler's
fictional universe.
> James Taggart was a tall, blue-eyed Nordic type.
Rand's description of James is interesting: "He looked like a man
approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without
the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and
thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His posture had a limp,
decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a
body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an
aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout..."
It's as if Rand were saying that James, as Nat Taggart's son, was
genetically predisposed -- "intended" -- to be a right-thinking
capitalist (i.e., an attractive man), but he blew it, and now nature has
retaliated by robbing him of his good looks.
By the way, his eyes aren't blue. They are "pale and veiled." Socialist
ideas, it seems, can affect even the tint of one's irises...
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Karen White <ji...@myriad.net> wrote:
> :
> : I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
> : fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
> : including Ayn Rand herself.
>
> : Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
> : such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
> : of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
> : such charges?
>
I can think of a fourth: the apocalyptic/messianic theme of "Atlas
Shrugged." The rational individualists don't just triumph in the end,
they triumph *utterly* -- the implication is that most of the evil
collectivists will be destroyed in the final collapse of civilization,
and those who survive are so weakened and so scattered that they'll pose
no problem when the individualists return to rebuild. As Galt says in
his speech: "Those who choose to join us, will join us; those who don't,
will not have the power to stop us; hordes of savages have never been an
obstacle to men who carried the banner of the mind."
The problem with translating this fictional scenario into real life is
that real-life revolutionaries generally aren't content to wait up in
the mountains for a corrupt civilization to destroy itself -- sooner or
later they get impatient and try to take a more active hand in bringing
on the day of reckoning. And when you think you're fighting the Ultimate
Battle of Good Against Evil, things are apt to get pretty ugly.
-- M. Ruff
DSANDIN
>In article <19990205183253...@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Dean Sandin
>writes:...
>
>>This is an age of extensive moral relativism and subjectivism. Ayn Rand
>>said (and proved) that we can be objective and certain, in all areas of
>>knowledge.
>
> Hey, Dean, I'm wondering if you would do me a favor? Would you provide
>a cite (small or large, I'll do what it takes) where Ayn Rand *proves* stuff
>like this. I'm involved in another thread where certain others here are
>claiming that objectivists claim Ayn Rand said (either directly or implicitly
>in her writing) that she *proved* the ethics of rational egoism is right.
>Well, at least they're saying objectivists say she has. As someone reared in
>the sciences, when I read proof, I instantly think of the formal type I saw in
>advanced calculus, or maybe a formal logic course, you know. I've read most of
>Rand's stuff; I don't remember any formalism like that so just what is it (and
>most importantly where is it) that Ayn Rand *proved* these kinds of
>metaphysical things?
>
> Thanks in advance.
The following is intended as helpful, keeping to the spirit of a thanks
in advance.
If you want the meaning of "proof" in Objectivism (quoted in the
_Lexicon_):
"Proof," in the full sense, is the process of deriving a
conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses,
each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic.
Expecting all proof to take the form of a proof in calculus is a
fallacy. Proof is a process that validates an integration, not a
mechanical deduction that manipulates formal symbols.
You've shown evidence in the past, and now here, that you're aware of
Rand's works. (Your words imply you've read Rand and can't find what
you are asking about in what she wrote.) So I have to think you have
access to the small or large citations already, and this is your way of
claiming smoke and mirrors on Rand's part. On what basis? From your
own ignorance, not your own knowledge. For what you patently _don't_
have is the integration of the philosophy.
It's not citations that will help you there. The works you are already
aware of include _ITOE_ for epistemology and _VOS_ for ethics. And
maybe you have the _Lexicon_ for summary/lookup purposes. If you want
some starting advice as opposed to citations, go to ITOE for the
questions of certainty and proof. Of course, it is particularly written
to introduce her theory of concepts as objective. For a hierarchical
exposition of Objectivist epistemology as a whole, deliberately
proceeding from objectivity to matters of certainty and proof, Peikoff's
material on epistemology in _OPAR_ is excellent.
--- Dean
Rod Nibbe
>On Sun, Feb 7, 1999 01:39 EST, in <1999020706...@alaska.net>,
>Rod Nibbe <rni...@alaska.net> wrote:
[snip my request for examples of Rand "proving" stuff ...]
>The following is intended as helpful, keeping to the spirit of a thanks
>in advance.
>If you want the meaning of "proof" in Objectivism (quoted in the
>_Lexicon_):
> "Proof," in the full sense, is the process of deriving a
> conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses,
> each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic.
Good. I like to begin with definitions.
>Expecting all proof to take the form of a proof in calculus is a
>fallacy. Proof is a process that validates an integration, not a
>mechanical deduction that manipulates formal symbols.
Well, and this is beside the point of my question and not relevant to
my purpose, but this sounds like you're pointing to some distinction between
induction in Rand's epistemology and math which is just deduction. That's not
right, really, because the inductive proof is useful in mathematics, too.
FWIW.
>You've shown evidence in the past, and now here, that you're aware of
>Rand's works. (Your words imply you've read Rand and can't find what
>you are asking about in what she wrote.)
Yeah, sortof.
>So I have to think you have
>access to the small or large citations already, and this is your way of
>claiming smoke and mirrors on Rand's part.
Woa, woa, woa! What happened to that "helpful" spirit honoring my
"thanks in advance?!" I am not, and have not claimed Rand uses smoke 'n
mirrors. Where in god's name did that come from, Dean. Sheesh.
Have you poked your nose into the "Prudent Predator Rebuttal" thread?
Had you, you'd discover something about my view of Rand that might just
surprise you.
>On what basis?
On no basis. Check your premise.
>From your
>own ignorance, not your own knowledge.
You just couldn't resist the ad-hominem, could you, Dean? "Spirit of
thanks in advance" - pffft!
>For what you patently _don't_ have is the integration of the philosophy.
You know, Dean, your posts have that pompous
sittin'-in-the-lotus-position-atop-a-high-mountain ring that ressurects in me
the very infusion of contempt I first experienced in grade school when some
dim-lit schoolmarm banished me to the hallway there admonishing me to "adjust
my attitude." You said in your post Rand *proved* things related to
epistemology (maybe ethics). I ask a genuine question, you begin by
identifying the spirit of my question (correctly), claim your answer will be
consistent with that spirit and "helpful" - and then this!
You are the archetype of my refusal to call myself an objectivist.
>It's not citations that will help you there. The works you are already
>aware of include _ITOE_ for epistemology and _VOS_ for ethics. And
>maybe you have the _Lexicon_ for summary/lookup purposes. If you want
>some starting advice as opposed to citations, go to ITOE for the
>questions of certainty and proof. Of course, it is particularly written
>to introduce her theory of concepts as objective. For a hierarchical
>exposition of Objectivist epistemology as a whole, deliberately
>proceeding from objectivity to matters of certainty and proof, Peikoff's
>material on epistemology in _OPAR_ is excellent.
Wow. Several years on HPO, more before on apo, and you think I don't
know of OPAR? As if reading OPAR would inexorably lead me to your conclusions.
Hardly an answer to my question. But don't sweat it, I'll ask someone
else.
-RKN
(rni...@alaska.net)
Christopher Roberson
: In <1999020605...@qix.rs.itd.umich.edu> Christopher Roberson
: <rob...@umich.edu> writes:
:>:>Can't any of you tell the difference between 'almost all' and 'all'?
: That's perhaps the oddest error I've seen you make here. A tad of the
: dog that bit you, eh?
Heh, heh, heh.
Mea culpa.
Let me rephrase:
I wish more of you would pay attention to the difference between 'almost
all' and 'all'.
Ernest Brown
If you want to see a chilling overview of Nazi aesthetics, try and track
down the superb documentary, THE ARCHITECTURE OF DOOM. It does a brilliant
job of exposing the Nazi's "sense of life" as expressed in their artistic
values.
Ernie
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On 6 Feb 1999, John Alway wrote:
> Date: 6 Feb 1999 05:24:46 GMT
> From: John Alway <jal...@icsi.net>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Subject: Re: Fascism and Objectivism
R Lawrence
>And anyway, her villains are indeed pudgy,
Ellsworth Toohey?
> fussy,
Ivy Starnes?
> effeminate,
Gus Webb?
> dark-haired
James Taggart?
> little men.
Lillian Rearden?
> If they have money, it's not by virtue of honest labor, but by
>sneaky, underhanded thievery.
Gosh, she made her villains so ... villainous.
> To any educated reader in the 1940s and
>1950s, this description screamed "anti-Semitic literary depiction of a
>Jew." My first impression, in any case, was that Rand was an anti-Semite;
You should have read her *other* novels: _We the Living_, _Anthem_, _The
Fountainhead_, and _Atlas Shrugged_.
On a less sarcastic note, it occurs to me that several things are going on
here. First, there is a tendency for people to forget the details,
especially unmemorable things like the color of James Taggart's hair. Then,
when reconstructing their memories, they throw together a pastiche of
things they do remember from different characters, all colored by the
repeated claims that Rand was a fascist. The result is a mental image of a
supposed Randian uber-villain similar to Mr. Roberson's description above.
I will grant that Rand makes most of her heroes physically attractive
(particularly by her own standards, if her real-life romantic interests are
compared), and most of her villains physically unattractive -- in various
ways, not with any uniform stereotype. This is hardly a singularly fascist
trait.
============================================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold wrote:
>
> > Ka6l3279 wrote:
>
> > > Yet another stereotype of Rand. Just a little reminder:
> > >
> > > Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
>
> > He was still beautiful, though. All the good guys were.
>
> thing?
Depends on the context. As a serious suggestion, the idea that one's
moral worth can be adduced from one's physical appearance is a
ridiculous notion -- and a potentially dangerous one. It's also a very
popular idea with fascists and other breeds of totalitarian.
As a fictional device, having the good guys wear white hats while the
villains dress in black is, at best, a cliche. I also happen to think
it's more interesting when the writer doesn't telegraph who the reader
is supposed to root for.
> >And all the bad
> > guys were ugly.
>
> Not entirely. Ferris was described as handsome.
He is described as *relatively* handsome: "Dr. Floyd Ferris would not
have been noticed as particularly handsome in any other profession, but
in the one he had chosen he was always described as 'that good-looking
scientist'," i.e, he's attractive compared to the average government
science nerd -- faint praise indeed. Rand goes on to say that Ferris'
black hair looks like it's been laquered with shoe polish, and that
Ferris has been told he looks like "a titled European gigolo." So we're
talking Snidely Whiplash as head of the D.o.E.
> > In Rand's fictional universe, you can judge people's
> > moral character at a glance; and in this sense it does resemble Hitler's
> > fictional universe.
>
> What was Hitler's fictional universe?
The Nazi propaganda universe, in which good, clean-cut Aryans squared
off against evil, dirty, hook-nosed Jews.
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Karen White wrote:
>
> > I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
> > fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
> > including Ayn Rand herself.
> >
> > Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
> > such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
> > of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
> > such charges?
>
> and morality. There are certain mentalities who feel that anyone
> who claims that x is absolutely true, or that x is absolutely right
> or wrong, is trying to force something upon them.
But Rand didn't just claim that x is true. She wrote a novel in which
the people who believe x is true take over the world, while the people
who believe x is false either die or are reduced to a state of
barbarism. She refers to these unbelievers as "savages" who "will not
have the power to stop us" -- which sounds like a rallying cry for a
pogrom.
> Somehow, they feel that their "freedom" rests upon moral ambiguity.
Is it unreasonable to think that my freedom might rest on not being
dismissed as a "savage" just because I disagree with the reigning
orthodoxy?
> These people will see absolutely no difference between Ayn Rand and
> a Christian fundamentalist (which is their archetype of ultimate
> evil).
Rand's actual beliefs were markedly different from those of Christian
fundamentalists. Her *way of believing*, however, was quite similar --
i.e., she believed that she was in possession of the absolute truth,
that this was obvious to any reasonably intelligent person, and that
therefore anyone who persisted in disagreeing with her after hearing her
arguments was exhibiting bad faith.
-- M. Ruff
John Alway
> Ka6l3279 wrote:
> > Yet another stereotype of Rand. Just a little reminder:
> >
> > Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
> He was still beautiful, though. All the good guys were.
Sure, these were *idealized* men. Are you against this sort of
thing?
>And all the bad
> guys were ugly.
Not entirely. Ferris was described as handsome.
> In Rand's fictional universe, you can judge people's
> moral character at a glance; and in this sense it does resemble Hitler's
> fictional universe.
What was Hitler's fictional universe? From what I gather he
worshipped the purely physical, and had no regard for the rational.
...John
Lavos999
>The problem with translating this fictional scenario into real life is
>that real-life revolutionaries generally aren't content to wait up in
>the mountains for a corrupt civilization to destroy itself
Assuming the revolutionary cause is just, a good question is: "Why should
they?" Freedom is the birthright of all humans. I want to achieve freedom in my
lifetime, not in some time in the nebulous future.
>And when you think you're fighting the Ultimate
>Battle of Good Against Evil, things are apt to get pretty ugly.
Perhaps, but reality isn't always nice and pretty.
------------------------------------
The Red New Deal with a Soviet seal
Endorsed by a Moscow hand
The strange result of a foreign cult
In a liberty-loving land.
Christopher Roberson
: Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
:>And anyway, her villains are indeed pudgy,
: Ellsworth Toohey?
:> fussy,
: Ivy Starnes?
:> effeminate,
[etc., etc., etc.]
Christ almighty, the nits you people pick.
No, not ALL her villains match anti-Semitic stereotypes. Some do, though,
and quite noticeably. Pointing out that some of them lack some of the
stereotypical features does not constitute a refutation of my claim.
And not ALL her heroes are Aryan types. But most are. Even the
multi-cultural mix of heroes in _Atlas Shrugged_ have pretty much the same
set of features, with minor details thrown in here & there to
differentiate them, much like the actors on soap operas.
:> To any educated reader in the 1940s and
:>1950s, this description screamed "anti-Semitic literary depiction of a
:>Jew." My first impression, in any case, was that Rand was an anti-Semite;
: On a less sarcastic note, it occurs to me that several things are going on
: here. First, there is a tendency for people to forget the details,
: especially unmemorable things like the color of James Taggart's hair.
Who mentioned hair color of anyone? Not me.
Besides, recall the question that started this ridiculous thread: why do
people call Rand a fascist? My answer, which I still think is on target,
is that Rand appears to be perpetuating common anti-Semitic literary
stereotypes. APPEARS to be. That appearance may dissipate (somewhat) when
one reads more closely, and particularly when one finds out that Rand
herself was Jewish. But some elements of stereotyping are still there, and
I'm amused by the strenuous attempts to pretend they're not.
Mike Rael
I particularly enjoyed it when you looked at what Chris Roberson
wrote in point #2, accepted the facts about which he was mistaken, and
then did what his critic might well have done:tried to ascertain what
Chris was getting at, and then presenting it in a fashion more
intellectually acute than was originally done!
As I wrote earlier in this thread, the fundamental core of
fascism is an attitude of "This is wrong" but without any attempt to show
a better way.
Your approach to criticism is in direct contradistinction to this,
and might be termed the "creative critic":)
best wishes,
Mike
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold (Storyt...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Ka6l3279 wrote:
: >
: > Chris Roberson wrote:
: >
: > >2. Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types; her villains
: > >are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men.
: >
: > Yet another stereotype of Rand. Just a little reminder:
: >
: > Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
: He was still beautiful, though. All the good guys were. And all the bad
: guys were ugly. In Rand's fictional universe, you can judge people's
: moral character at a glance; and in this sense it does resemble Hitler's
: fictional universe.
: > James Taggart was a tall, blue-eyed Nordic type.
: Rand's description of James is interesting: "He looked like a man
: approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without
: the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and
: thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His posture had a limp,
: decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a
: body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an
: aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout..."
: It's as if Rand were saying that James, as Nat Taggart's son, was
: genetically predisposed -- "intended" -- to be a right-thinking
: capitalist (i.e., an attractive man), but he blew it, and now nature has
: retaliated by robbing him of his good looks.
: By the way, his eyes aren't blue. They are "pale and veiled." Socialist
: ideas, it seems, can affect even the tint of one's irises...
: -- M. Ruff
--
Mike Rael, MS, instructional technology
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
owner, COACHING BY PHONE, the rapid way to raise reality-based self-esteem
jal...@icsi.net
Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
> jal...@icsi.net wrote:
[...]
> : This blond, blue-eyed idea seems to be completely wrong, Chris.
> I didn't say 'blond', I said tall. And the ideal is Anglo-Saxonish: Hank.
> Rearden. Howard. Roark. John. Galt.
Your description was "Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic
types."
Nordic to me implies a very narrow category of physical appearance, which
would include blond hair implicitly. You broaden it quite significantly when
you eliminate "blue-eyed", use "Anglo-Saxon", and then append it with "-ish",
which stretches it out ever more.
I agree with *that* description.
But, still, I see your overall point, even though I had did not make any of
those associations when I read the book. The idea of Anglo-Saxon, Jew, or
Arab, for that matter, didn't even remotely enter my mind.
...John
John Alway
> John Alway wrote:
> > Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold wrote:
> > > Ka6l3279 wrote:
> > > > Yet another stereotype of Rand. Just a little reminder:
> > > > Francisco D'Anconia was from South America.
> > > He was still beautiful, though. All the good guys were.
> > Sure, these were *idealized* men. Are you against this sort of
> > thing?
> Depends on the context. As a serious suggestion, the idea that one's
> moral worth can be adduced from one's physical appearance is a
> ridiculous notion -- and a potentially dangerous one.
Sure it's ridiculous, but Rand would never say that it wasn't, as is
clear from her philosophy. I'm guessing that she idealized the good as
beautiful and the bad as ugly in order to make more clear how she viewed
them. Notice, however, that certain traits are a matter of choice and
can improve ones looks.
> It's also a very
> popular idea with fascists and other breeds of totalitarian.
I don't know if you're right. It certainly isn't essential to fascism,
or communism.
Btw, you may have noted that the idea is popular in modern tv and
movies.
> As a fictional device, having the good guys wear white hats while the
> villains dress in black is, at best, a cliche. I also happen to think
> it's more interesting when the writer doesn't telegraph who the reader
> is supposed to root for.
The big conflict in AS was mainly between the good guys.
> > >And all the bad
> > > guys were ugly.
> > Not entirely. Ferris was described as handsome.
> He is described as *relatively* handsome:
True, but still handsome, not ugly. He was unsavory, of course,
but it was his *ideas* that really made him that way.
> > > In Rand's fictional universe, you can judge people's
> > > moral character at a glance; and in this sense it does resemble Hitler's
> > > fictional universe.
> > What was Hitler's fictional universe?
> The Nazi propaganda universe, in which good, clean-cut Aryans squared
> off against evil, dirty, hook-nosed Jews.
How about the beautiful Dagny Taggart squaring off against the handsome
John Galt?
And, don't forget the bigger point.
AS was primarily about the *mind*. The men of reason versus all
others. It was, on a lower level, the men of freedom versus the
totalitarians.
...John
Christopher Roberson
: In article <1999020605...@qix.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
: [...]
:> : This blond, blue-eyed idea seems to be completely wrong, Chris.
:> I didn't say 'blond', I said tall. And the ideal is Anglo-Saxonish: Hank.
:> Rearden. Howard. Roark. John. Galt.
: Your description was "Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic
: types."
: Nordic to me implies a very narrow category of physical appearance,
: which
: would include blond hair implicitly. You broaden it quite significantly
: when
: you eliminate "blue-eyed", use "Anglo-Saxon", and then append it with "-ish",
: which stretches it out ever more.
: I agree with *that* description.
I evidently was imprecise in my earlier description. I'll revise it
further:
People may have associated Ayn Rand with far-right or fascist thought
because her heroes almost all seem like ideal examples of Aryan manhood
(or womanhood), and her villains often have features stereotypically
associated (in the century before she wrote) with anti-Semitic
caricatures.
Okay?
And, as I've said, this cannot exactly have been Rand's intention. After
all, she was Jewish herself, and not tall, blue-eyed, or otherwise
stereotypically Aryan; and her philosophy explicitly condemns racism.
Nonetheless, as I've said, the stereotypical features are still there, and
may pose aesthetic problems in literary interpretations of Rand's work, if
nothing else.
: But, still, I see your overall point, even though I had did not make any of
: those associations when I read the book. The idea of Anglo-Saxon, Jew, or
: Arab, for that matter, didn't even remotely enter my mind.
You're right to point out that impressions can differ. I don't mean to
imply that everyone will take the same aesthetic message from Rand's work.
I do think that the physical characteristics of Rand's characters would
(did?) attract notice, particularly given that her major novels were
written in the 1940s and 1950s, when both literary and political
anti-Semitism were considerably more active and dangerous than they are
now.*
*Which is not to say that they're not dangerous now! Just somewhat less
so.
jal...@icsi.net
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <36BB8A94...@icsi.net> John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> writes:
[...]
> >That's a good point. This usually leads to the "dogmatism" charge,
> >which then would lead to the idea of ruling by an iron fist.
> Then you misunderstand the "dogmatism" charge, at least when it's
> levelled by folks like me.
I wasn't referring to folks like you, but to people who are largely
ignorant of Objectivism and dismiss it without much thought.
> It refers _not_ to the absolutism of the
> statement, but rather to the nature of the derivation of the statement.
> When a statement is traceable back to the facts of reality ("The Earth
> revolves around the sun."), it is absolute but not dogmatic. And yes,
> certain statements may hold in the ethical realm and be absolutist and
> still not dogmatic (though many--not me among them--would hold that an
> absolute ethical statement is inherently dogmatic).
> The reason some of the garbage spouted by ARIans ("Nonconsensual
> monopoly government is a 'tenet' of Objectivism.") gets accused of
> being dogmatic is because it _is_ dogmatic.
On the contrary, it is a part of the philosophy. It's not dogmatic in the
least, nor are Rand's arguments for it.
> It is accepted as prima
> facie true regardless of what the facts are, and "certainty" is applied
> to it not as a matter of logic, but as a matter of acceptance.
This is flat-out wrong. I accept the idea of government because the facts
support the idea that one is necessary. The problem with the anarchist
argument is that it doesn't appear to be complete. It's like an incomplete
sentence which leaves you groping for a thought which is never provided,
which everyone then argues about.
< Neither
> Rand, nor the facts of reality, yield nonconsensual monopoly government
> as a tenet of Objectivism.
Actually, the argument for a limited government is much stronger than the
argument against it. The idea that this is "dogma" is ridiculous, especially
in light of the strength of Rand's arguments. Sometimes perspective is
necessary. If you want to see dogma in action try alt.biblethumpers. People
who consider the bible the final word are truly dogmatic, and usually
unreachable.
> IOW, the _approach_ used by many (not all) ARIans is the typical
> faith-based approach, totally inconsistent with Objectivism. This is
> demonstrably so, their cries of denial to the contrary notwithstanding.
Well, Jim, you are describing rationalism, which means that conclusions are
started with and then defended. This failing is much more common among those
who argue against Objectivists, than Objectivists. But, rationalism is a
very real problem even among Objectivists because it is so imbued in modern
society.
As I see it there are two reasons why rationalism is so common, besides
the fact that the errors in it aren't universally understood.:
1> It's much easier to argue for a position than to go to the trouble of
inducing a principle. It takes *time* and *effort* to induce.
2> One can be concerned more with making an argument iron clad, than with
tying it down to reality, not realizing that reality is the best way to make
an argument iron clad. This sort of arguing is very convincing to the
arguer.
> [And save me a post, willya? Answer the damn question.]
Are you referring to the posting that I answered *twice*? Geez, Jim, why
is it you can't ask a question that is understandable!?
Jim Klein
>> The reason some of the garbage spouted by ARIans ("Nonconsensual
>> monopoly government is a 'tenet' of Objectivism.") gets accused of
>> being dogmatic is because it _is_ dogmatic.
>
>On the contrary, it is a part of the philosophy. It's not dogmatic in
>the least, nor are Rand's arguments for it.
It is _not_ part of the philosophy, and in fact Rand offered arguments
_against_ it, if anything. I defy you to find _one_ instance where
Rand argued for _nonconsensual_ monopoly government.
In "The Nature of Government" she indirectly argued against it, in view
of the fact that her very defense of monopoly government was _built_
upon consent. You can't take an argument built upon a primary premise,
and then negate the premise and pretend that the same conclusion
follows.
Now it's true that denial of an antecedent doesn't imply denial of the
consequent, so if you want to maintain that she left the issue "open,"
then I won't quibble. But she most definitely DID NOT argue for
nonconsensual monopoly government...not there nor anywhere else AFAIK.
>>It is accepted as prima facie true regardless of what the facts are,
>>and "certainty" is applied to it not as a matter of logic, but as a
>>matter of acceptance.
>
>This is flat-out wrong. I accept the idea of government because the
>facts support the idea that one is necessary. The problem with the
>anarchist argument is that it doesn't appear to be complete. It's
>like an incomplete sentence which leaves you groping for a thought
>which is never provided, which everyone then argues about.
I can dig that POV, and I won't dispute it presently. I'm not arguing
the logic of anarchism, nor even the logic of monopoly government. But
you simply _must_ recognize the distinction between monopoly government
and nonconsensual monopoly government, and the fact that Rand argued
for the former and not the latter.
Hell's bells man...what government did she impute to her idealized
society, the Gulch? NONE, that's what. And don't even think of
calling one arbiter--unanimously agreed to be the dispute resolution
mechanism--"a government." Please don't do that.
And please don't retort that old dodge, "Well, that was such a tiny
society and ours is so large." I simply KNOW you've read her well
enough to know she addressed THAT response too.
>> [And save me a post, willya? Answer the damn question.]
>
>Are you referring to the posting that I answered *twice*? Geez, Jim,
>why is it you can't ask a question that is understandable!?
This ain't you, John; I'll assume the Devil is making you do this,
since it might as well be! You know that you're not going to get out
of this so easily. I asked a simple and clear question, with simple
and clear words. You even acknowledged that it was "a pretty good
question." And no, you _didn't_ answer it yet, not directly. So I'll
make this the third formal time, and I assume that you recall the
assertions and that we're assuming your assertion is true and Rand's
assertion is false, which is the correct assumption anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Which assertion is consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The only choices I can think of are...yours, hers, both or neither.
Jump in, the water's fine; you'll never go wrong acknowledging
reality. Any apparent contradictions you're worried about...we'll work
them out later.
jk
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip counter-examples to Mr. Roberson's claim that Rand's villains were
"pudgy, fussy, effeminate, dark-haired little men">
>Christ almighty, the nits you people pick.
>
>No, not ALL her villains match anti-Semitic stereotypes. Some do, though,
>and quite noticeably. Pointing out that some of them lack some of the
>stereotypical features does not constitute a refutation of my claim.
The fact that several major villains don't match the stereotype pretty much
blows the whole theory. "Some do" isn't much of a claim to fall back to.
>And not ALL her heroes are Aryan types. But most are. Even the
>multi-cultural mix of heroes in _Atlas Shrugged_ have pretty much the same
>set of features, with minor details thrown in here & there to
>differentiate them, much like the actors on soap operas.
I never denied the part about the heroes. It's quite clear that she made
her heroes (mostly) beautiful, and her villains (mostly) ugly, and that
this was quite intentional. And the type she viewed as physical beautiful
could be described (somewhat prejudicially) as "Aryan." However, the claim
of anti-Semetic stereotyping of the villains doesn't hold water.
>>On a less sarcastic note, it occurs to me that several things are going on
>>here. First, there is a tendency for people to forget the details,
>>especially unmemorable things like the color of James Taggart's hair.
>
>Who mentioned hair color of anyone? Not me.
Then to what does your mention of "dark-haired" villains refer? That their
hair didn't radiate light?
>Besides, recall the question that started this ridiculous thread: why do
>people call Rand a fascist? My answer, which I still think is on target,
>is that Rand appears to be perpetuating common anti-Semitic literary
>stereotypes.
If you stuck to the appearances of her heroes, I would agree that this
contributes to (although it certainly does not justify) the "fascist"
label. The good=beautiful, bad=ugly (generally speaking) dichotomy in her
novels probably adds to it as well. In contrast, claims of anti-Semetic
stereotyping more likely flow from the conclusion of fascism, rather than
causing it, because they aren't adequately supported by the writing itself.
> APPEARS to be. That appearance may dissipate (somewhat) when
>one reads more closely, and particularly when one finds out that Rand
>herself was Jewish. But some elements of stereotyping are still there,
Oh, now we're down to "some elements .. are still there." Well, that's nice
and general. Since the anti-Semetic stereotype you gave contains traits
that are commonly considered unattractive (pudgy, effeminate, little), the
simple fact that Rand makes her villains unattractive means that "some
elements" you listed will match some of the villains. That hardly supports
claims of "anti-Semetic stereotyping" (or the appearance thereof).
> and
>I'm amused by the strenuous attempts to pretend they're not.
You are the one making unsupported generalizations about Rand's villains,
so perhaps you should be upset with yourself, rather than amused with
people who produce evidence that your generalizations are inaccurate.
Christopher Roberson
: <snip counter-examples to Mr. Roberson's claim that Rand's villains were
: "pudgy, fussy, effeminate, dark-haired little men">
:>Christ almighty, the nits you people pick.
:>
:>No, not ALL her villains match anti-Semitic stereotypes. Some do, though,
:>and quite noticeably. Pointing out that some of them lack some of the
:>stereotypical features does not constitute a refutation of my claim.
: The fact that several major villains don't match the stereotype pretty much
: blows the whole theory. "Some do" isn't much of a claim to fall back to.
What theory?
In any case, your overall point is accurate, particularly as applied to
_Atlas Shrugged_: not all of Rand's villains are noticeably similar to
anti-Semitic literary stereotypes.
Why shouldn't it bother me, though, as a reader, to recognize in _some_ of
her villains the same stereotypes that were present in plenty of
anti-Semitic depictions around that time? (Note: I am not referring only
to crude Nazi propaganda. There was also an unfortunate tradition of
"genteel" European anti-Semitism at the time, on almost all areas of the
socio-political literary spectrum.)
:>And not ALL her heroes are Aryan types. But most are. Even the
:>multi-cultural mix of heroes in _Atlas Shrugged_ have pretty much the same
:>set of features, with minor details thrown in here & there to
:>differentiate them, much like the actors on soap operas.
: I never denied the part about the heroes. It's quite clear that she made
: her heroes (mostly) beautiful, and her villains (mostly) ugly, and that
: this was quite intentional. And the type she viewed as physical beautiful
: could be described (somewhat prejudicially) as "Aryan."
I'm glad we agree on that much, to the extent to which we agree. And I
wondered, when I read the books, why she seemed so obsessed with that
particular criterion of physical beauty -- and indeed why she was so
concerned to associate intellectual and moral worth with physical beauty
at all. It seemed weird.
However, the claim
: of anti-Semetic stereotyping of the villains doesn't hold water.
:>>On a less sarcastic note, it occurs to me that several things are going on
:>>here. First, there is a tendency for people to forget the details,
:>>especially unmemorable things like the color of James Taggart's hair.
:>
:>Who mentioned hair color of anyone? Not me.
: Then to what does your mention of "dark-haired" villains refer? That their
: hair didn't radiate light?
Mea culpa again. I didn't mention hair color of the heroes, though.
(And the dark hair and features of at least one villain... I forget who,
it's been a while... reminded me immediately of anti-Semitic obsessions
with the dark hair and features of their objects of disdain or hatred.)
:>Besides, recall the question that started this ridiculous thread: why do
:>people call Rand a fascist? My answer, which I still think is on target,
:>is that Rand appears to be perpetuating common anti-Semitic literary
:>stereotypes.
: If you stuck to the appearances of her heroes, I would agree that this
: contributes to (although it certainly does not justify) the "fascist"
: label. The good=beautiful, bad=ugly (generally speaking) dichotomy in her
: novels probably adds to it as well. In contrast, claims of anti-Semetic
: stereotyping more likely flow from the conclusion of fascism, rather than
: causing it, because they aren't adequately supported by the writing itself.
:> APPEARS to be. That appearance may dissipate (somewhat) when
:>one reads more closely, and particularly when one finds out that Rand
:>herself was Jewish. But some elements of stereotyping are still there,
: Oh, now we're down to "some elements .. are still there." Well, that's nice
: and general. Since the anti-Semetic stereotype you gave contains traits
: that are commonly considered unattractive (pudgy, effeminate, little), the
: simple fact that Rand makes her villains unattractive means that "some
: elements" you listed will match some of the villains. That hardly supports
: claims of "anti-Semetic stereotyping" (or the appearance thereof).
When I read the books, several characters, villains and never heroes, were
described in ways that struck me as very similar to the ways that Jews
were often depicted by anti-Semitic writers. Rand's focus on associating
moral quality with physical beauty or ugliness, and the particular
standards she used for both beauty and ugliness, seemed closely aligned
with anti-Semitic obsessions with the respective _physical_ qualities of
Gentiles and Jews.
Other readers seem to have had the same impressions I did, and this may
explain how some of them came to associate Rand's work with anti-Semitic
themes, and thus perhaps with certain strains of fascism.
Or maybe it doesn't. These first impressions could not by themselves
indicate anything conclusive about Rand's motives, and the facts of her
own personal life might undermine the impressions. But the impressions
came about nonetheless, and were caused by elements that were present in
Rand's work. And they're a source of puzzlement both to me and to others.
I'm not aware that I've made any more ambitious claims than that. That's
all I intended to say in the first place.
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> In any case, your overall point is accurate, particularly as applied
> to _Atlas Shrugged_: not all of Rand's villains are noticeably
> similar to anti-Semitic literary stereotypes.
If it makes you feel any better, Chris, I think your point is more or
less accurate as well: in "Atlas Shrugged," physical beauty correlates
very strongly to moral worth. I see the same parallel to anti-Semitic
propaganda that you do. No, Rand is not explicitly racist (the
occasional stray comment about green-toothed Arabs excepted) but I do
get the sense reading her character descriptions that good and evil are
largely instrinsic qualities, and that with a few very minor exceptions,
her heroes and villains are locked into their roles at birth. If that's
true--if villains are villains by nature, and cannot be "cured" or
reformed, then the only thing to do is root them out and destroy them.
And if everyone who disagrees with Rand's philosophy is a villain...
> Why shouldn't it bother me, though, as a reader, to recognize in
> _some_ of her villains the same stereotypes that were present in
> plenty of anti-Semitic depictions around that time?
It should bother you.
> ...And I
> wondered, when I read the books, why she seemed so obsessed with that
> particular criterion of physical beauty...
Could be it was a popular stereotype in the books and films she was
exposed to while developing her own fiction style. She did grow up in
Russia, after all -- and even if she didn't agree with Czarist and
Soviet propaganda, that doesn't mean she didn't absorb some of the
techniques. Similarly, I think some of the more melodramatic elements in
her fiction are a result of her learning English by reading the
subtitles of American silent films.
> However, the claim
> of anti-Semetic stereotyping of the villains doesn't hold water.
Not the anti-Semitic part, maybe, but they definitely are stereotypes of
the kind used to justify totalitarian/fascist policies. Maybe what's
leading you astray here is the fact that historically, fascist
propaganda did (and still does) often make use of anti-Semitic themes.
But even if it didn't, it would still be fascist propaganda.
Scapegoating people for their political or philosophical beliefs is no
better than scapegoating them for their ethnic or religious backround.
-- M. Ruff
mape...@pacbell.net
> :> APPEARS to be. That appearance may dissipate (somewhat) when
> :>one reads more closely, and particularly when one finds out that Rand
> :>herself was Jewish. But some elements of stereotyping are still there,
Just to put my two cents in ... I've read each of Rand's novels many times
each, but until this thread showed up, I've _never_ paid attention to the
appearance of characters. Rather than saying this alleged issue of
appearance dissipates on closer inspection, I'd say it only _comes up_ on
closer inspection. It was obvious to me that Rand's purpose in each novel
was to get certain ideas across, so I looked on the appearance of characters
as non- essential to that purpose. In fact, I'd say I expected that same
purpose to be the meat of _every_ novel I read, Rand's or otherwise (and to
the degree it wasn't, I wouldn't enjoy the book).
In fiction, movies, plays, etc., artists almost universally have made the
good guys attractive and the bad ones unattractive (according to their
standards of beauty). That, I think, is an issue of artistic integrity,
i.e., when striving to depict an ideal, mind and body alike _should_ be
idealized (and similarly for anti-ideals).
I think it's only been in relatively recent times that artists have turned
this on its ear and begun deliberately to dis-integrate their work, including
the characters. We see all manner of books, movies, and plays that focus on
_ugliness_, both of mind and body, and we're expected to admire such
characters (or at least regard them as "normal"). Instead of seeing
genuinely good guys who are attractive, we're given genuinely bad guys who
are ugly ... and we're expected to think the latter are cool and the former
uncool. All I have to do to concretize this vividly for myself is to think
of "Pulp Fiction" for two seconds ... ughhhh!
In short, it shouldn't surprise anybody to find that a writer of Romantic
novels tends to keep good/beautiful and bad/ugly together in his/her
characters. With a writer like Rand, to whom artistic integration was a
conscious and important aesthetic principle, one should be surprised if she
_didn't_ do this! That some think they see negative stereotypes, or worse,
think those stereotypes are somehow significant, is more a comment on what
they had in their minds before they read Rand than what got into their minds
as a result of reading her.
Mark Peters
Iván Ordóñez
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...] in "Atlas Shrugged," physical beauty correlates
>very strongly to moral worth.
Not physical beauty, but Rand's archaic, Eurocentric conception of
physical beauty. Which I happen to find rather distasteful.
--
Iván Ordóñez
iord...@columbus.rr.com
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~iordonez
email is iordonez at columbus dot rr dot com
Steve Davis
> No, not ALL her villains match anti-Semitic stereotypes.
How quite different this is from:
: her villains are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men.
> And not ALL her heroes are Aryan types. But most are.
And how different this is from:
: Her heroes are almost all tall, blue-eyed Nordic types;
I always thought Howard Roark was Irish. That seemed to connect with
his interest in explosives.
;-)
Christopher Roberson
: Christopher Roberson wrote:
:> No, not ALL her villains match anti-Semitic stereotypes.
: How quite different this is from:
: : her villains are generally pudgy, fussy, dark-haired little men.
I'm not aware that there's any huge difference between "generally" and
"not all." If I'd meant initially to say "all," I would have.
Christopher Roberson
:>
:> In any case, your overall point is accurate, particularly as applied
:> to _Atlas Shrugged_: not all of Rand's villains are noticeably
:> similar to anti-Semitic literary stereotypes.
: If it makes you feel any better, Chris, I think your point is more or
: less accurate as well [...]
It does, and thanks.
Minor caveat: I didn't write the following. It was either John Alway or R
Lawrence.
:> However, the claim
:> of anti-Semetic stereotyping of the villains doesn't hold water.
--
Christopher Roberson
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~robchr/
jal...@icsi.net
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snipped absurd and irrational commentary>
*Anyone* can be an Objectivist regardless of their visible features.
Objectivism is for *individuals* who want to pursue *their* life and
*happiness* through reason. The fascists, Matt, are Bill Clinton and
friends. They are clearly racist, and anti-freedom.
> Scapegoating people for their political or philosophical beliefs is no
> better than scapegoating them for their ethnic or religious backround.
Religious and political views are a matter of *choice*. People who
choose evil ideas and implement them by government policy should be held
accountable. They are *not* like ethnicity, which is not a matter of choice.
...John
jal...@icsi.net
Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
> In article <36C049...@worldnet.att.net>, Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
> <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> [...] in "Atlas Shrugged," physical beauty correlates
> >very strongly to moral worth.
> Not physical beauty, but Rand's archaic, Eurocentric conception of
> physical beauty. Which I happen to find rather distasteful.
Oh yah, those horrible Europeans that brought us logic, science,
Renaissance art, scientific engineering and the rights of man. Gee, what a
travesty that they ever existed. We need jungle savages and strange mystical
rituals!
Mark A. Peter
> Mark A. Peter wrote:
> >
> > Karen White wrote:
> >
> > > I have noted that there has been, at various times, a charge of
> > > fascism leveled against Objectivism, or particular Objectivists,
> > > including Ayn Rand herself.
> > >
> > > Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
> > > such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
> > > of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
> > > such charges?
> >
> > It's very simple. Ayn Rand is an absolutist with regard to truth
> > and morality. There are certain mentalities who feel that anyone
> > who claims that x is absolutely true, or that x is absolutely right
> > or wrong, is trying to force something upon them.
>
> But Rand didn't just claim that x is true. She wrote a novel in which
> the people who believe x is true take over the world, while the people
> who believe x is false either die or are reduced to a state of
> barbarism. She refers to these unbelievers as "savages" who "will not
> have the power to stop us" -- which sounds like a rallying cry for a
> pogrom.
If you can refer to what happened in Atlas Shrugged, namely the men of
ability withdrawing their talents from mainstream society and building a
new one elsewhere, as "taking over", then either you didn't read the
book or you suffer from the very misunderstanding to which I was
alluding. These actions were on the premise of liberty, not force. Can
you truly not see the difference?
> > Somehow, they feel that their "freedom" rests upon moral ambiguity.
>
> Is it unreasonable to think that my freedom might rest on not being
> dismissed as a "savage" just because I disagree with the reigning
> orthodoxy?
If this "orthodoxy" were in fact to become the reigning one, your
freedom would be guaranteed, regardless of your beliefs. Of course, if
you are seeking not to be left free to work for your own livelihood, but
prefer that others be forced to serve as hosts for your parasitism, then
you certainly stand to lose something; but that something isn't freedom.
> > These people will see absolutely no difference between Ayn Rand and
> > a Christian fundamentalist (which is their archetype of ultimate
> > evil).
>
> Rand's actual beliefs were markedly different from those of Christian
> fundamentalists. Her *way of believing*, however, was quite similar --
> i.e., she believed that she was in possession of the absolute truth,
> that this was obvious to any reasonably intelligent person, and that
> therefore anyone who persisted in disagreeing with her after hearing her
> arguments was exhibiting bad faith.
With all of the negative literature out there, I can only guess as to
which sources produced this opinion of yours. I will only say that if
you read any substantial amount of her non-fiction writing (or if you
are capable of reading between the lines in her fiction), it is quite
clear that she did *not* believe that her ideas were "obvious to any
reasonably intelligent person." Think carefully about the relationship
between Rearden and Francisco.
Incidentally, Any Rand's "way of believing" was precisely the opposite
of that of religious faith.
Mark Peter
Christopher Roberson
: In article <iordonez-090...@cvl219084.columbus.rr.com>,
: Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
:> In article <36C049...@worldnet.att.net>, Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
:> <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:> [...] in "Atlas Shrugged," physical beauty correlates
:> >very strongly to moral worth.
:> Not physical beauty, but Rand's archaic, Eurocentric conception of
:> physical beauty. Which I happen to find rather distasteful.
: Oh yah, those horrible Europeans that brought us logic, science,
: Renaissance art, scientific engineering and the rights of man.
: Gee, what a travesty that they ever existed. We need jungle savages and
: strange mystical rituals!
And don't forget: those Europeans were able to come up with logic,
science, the rights of man, and the Renaissance because they were white.
White people! Yes, only tall, handsome people with white skin and blue
eyes and straight hair could possibly have invented anything worth
desiring.
:|
Can we please, henceforth, try to avoid ludicrous straw-man arguments?
It's hard for me to believe that John Alway could, with a straight face,
really claim that Ivan meant anything like what John seems to be ascribing
to him.
Incidentally, I'm not particularly pleased with the implications of the
phrase 'jungle savages'. There are savages all over the world, and most of
them aren't found in jungles. Same with strange mystical rituals.
Lavos999
>And don't forget: those Europeans were able to come up with logic,
>science, the rights of man, and the Renaissance because they were white.
[And later...]
>Can we please, henceforth, try to avoid ludicrous straw-man arguments?
No comment.
Steve Davis
> Can we please, henceforth, try to avoid ludicrous straw-man arguments?
This is USENET.
Christopher Roberson
: Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
:>And don't forget: those Europeans were able to come up with logic,
:>science, the rights of man, and the Renaissance because they were white.
: [And later...]
:>Can we please, henceforth, try to avoid ludicrous straw-man arguments?
: No comment.
My ludicrous straw-man argument was obviously, I thought, a joke. I was
not so sure about John Alway's ludicrous straw-man argument, which seems
to have been snipped.
I think I need to add some smileys to indicate jokes & sarcasm.
White people! :) :) :)
Better?
Christopher Roberson
: Christopher Roberson wrote:
:> Can we please, henceforth, try to avoid ludicrous straw-man arguments?
: This is USENET.
LOL!!! Very loud.
You're absolutely right. I don't know what I could have been thinking.
:D
Iván Ordóñez
> Oh yah, those horrible Europeans that brought us logic, science,
>Renaissance art, scientific engineering and the rights of man. Gee, what a
>travesty that they ever existed. We need jungle savages and strange mystical
>rituals!
Don't be such a baby. I don't find Europeans to be ugly; I just don't find
them to be more beautiful in average than people of any other ethnicities.
What I find distasteful is the *idea* that they are more beautiful.
And by the way, logic, science, art, and scientific engineering were
discovered independently by multiple cultures.
Matt Durand
>
> Christopher Roberson wrote:
> >
> > In any case, your overall point is accurate, particularly as applied
> > to _Atlas Shrugged_: not all of Rand's villains are noticeably
> > similar to anti-Semitic literary stereotypes.
>
> very strongly to moral worth. I see the same parallel to anti-Semitic
> propaganda that you do.
Rand obviously considered pudgy, weak and effeminate character to be not
aesthetically pleasing, apparantly so to did the Nazis. However Rand did
NOT try to correlate these attributes with any specific race, the Nazis
DID.
To say that Rand is an anti-semite for believing these attributes to be
not aesthetically pleasing would be to say that they were accuratly
assigned by the Nazis to the Jews. Of course, they were not accurate or
at least not to a greater amount than any other group's retention of
undesirable physical characteristics.
If Rand doesn't like her men pudgy and effeminate, I can hardly blame
her. I hardly consider being pudgy and masculine to be particularly
desirable in a woman either. Yet if the Nazis claimed the Jewish women
were such fifty years ago would I seem an anti-semite now?
I won't dispute that Rand did ascribe these desirable physical traits to
her heroes and opposite to the villains. Which would not be accurate,
however, I don't believe this was something she advanced as true: that
one could judge moral worth by attractiveness. Such an assertion is
contradicted in other parts of her writing, fiction and non-fiction. I
beleive that it was probably used to heighten the contrast and to invoke
dissaproval of the villains. One can observe the same device in other
literature and even on, for example, shows like _Hard Copy_ where the
music shifts to prod out the "appropriate" emotional response. The
employment of this technique serves to provide a clearly (even if
artificially heightened, in this regard) atmosphere in the clashing of
opposites.
Though, in the end, the moral worth of the likes of Jim Taggart, Orren
Boyle, etc. would be apparant without any narrative whatsoever.
Matt
jal...@icsi.net
>: Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
>:> Not physical beauty, but Rand's archaic, Eurocentric conception of
>:> physical beauty. Which I happen to find rather distasteful.
[...]
> And don't forget: those Europeans were able to come up with logic,
> science, the rights of man, and the Renaissance because they were white.
That, apparently, is the view of the multiculturialist crowd, who emphasize
this point. Ordonez is presenting himself as one of this lot, thus my
response. You may not of noticed the ever so subtle racism in Ordonez's
posting that he sledge hammers you over the head with.
> White people! Yes, only tall, handsome people with white skin and blue
> eyes and straight hair could possibly have invented anything worth
> desiring.
I don't have the description of all the characters, but Mulligan was a hero
in the book, as was Wyatt, and several others in the Gulch. I don't remember
them being described as handsome. Clearly Rand was explicitly against the
idea that ones looks determine ones morality or brilliance.
> Can we please, henceforth, try to avoid ludicrous straw-man arguments?
I'm sorry, but I detect no strawman.
> It's hard for me to believe that John Alway could, with a straight face,
> really claim that Ivan meant anything like what John seems to be ascribing
> to him.
Are you aware that "eurocentric" is a postmodernist word coined by
anti-Western types? The implications of Ordonez's posting are much more than
you seem to realize.
>Incidentally, I'm not particularly pleased with the implications of the
>phrase 'jungle savages'.
Why? Are you making the claim that they don't exist?
> There are savages all over the world, and most of
>them aren't found in jungles. Same with strange mystical rituals.
You'll have to show me how this dovetails with my comment. You see, I'm
attacking the multiculturialists, who Ordonez is representing here.
Multiculturialists put down the west and hold up every two bit civilization
they can find.
Iván Ordóñez
[...]
> That, apparently, is the view of the multiculturialist crowd, who emphasize
>this point. Ordonez is presenting himself as one of this lot, thus my
>response.
It's really funny when somebody else tells me what I think. I am not
presenting myself as a multiculturalist; your belief that I am reflects
nothing but your own prejudices.
> You may not of noticed the ever so subtle racism in Ordonez's
>posting that he sledge hammers you over the head with.
This is so despicable that it doesn't even deserve a response. I will,
however, open a parenthesis for a grammar flame, because it's a pet peeve
of mine: "may not of"???? what the hell does the particle "of" have to do
with the verb "have," other than that they sound similarly in the mind of
the linguistically challenged? I never understood how people who can
actually read and write could be capable of such an error. Must be a
monolingual or monocultural thing.
[...]
> Are you aware that "eurocentric" is a postmodernist word coined by
>anti-Western types? The implications of Ordonez's posting are much more than
>you seem to realize.
Are you aware that you are in danger of drowning in your own bulshit?
Eurocentrism is a perfectly valid concept, that reflects a very real
ideology: that Europe is somehow more important, more beautiful, more
significant than the rest of the world. It is a view that has
unfortunately been very prevalent until recently. Incidentaly, such a
view, in a very restricted, extreme way, was central to fascism.
If there are any implications in these posts, they stem from the fact that
by rejecting the reality of Eurocentrism you are just showing that you are
willing to go to extreme lengths to try to cover the sun with a finger. It
is ironic that an objectivist, supossedly quite infatuated with reality,
would reject it whenever it is convenient. Next you are going to say that
racism is just an invention of the Left, after accusing me of being one of
its members.
[...] You see, I'm
>attacking the multiculturialists, who Ordonez is representing here.
You are attacking a strawman. You are either
(1) honest and stupid, actually believing that you can trigger such
enormous conclusions just from a few keywords, or
(2) dishonest, knowingly engaging in a strawman attack.
>Multiculturialists put down the west and hold up every two bit civilization
>they can find.
Qué bueno que no hay de esos por aquí.
XNFP
I stated much of my point of view on this matter in one of the ATLAS SHRUGGED
threads a while back, but I wanted to respond to this post anyway.
>The problem began with Rand's "indirect" means of
>characterization in her novels, giving heroes as archetypes rather than
>as folks dealing with their own self-doubts, moments of cowardice as well
>as those of courage.
As you know, I disagree with this, at least as far as ATLAS goes. Both Dagny
Taggart and Hank Rearden had more than their share of self-doubts. This is
particularly poignant towards the end of the novel, where Dagny must decide
whether or not to join the strike. She is torn between the railroad, which she
loves and does not want to destroy, and the strike, which philosophically she
supports (besides wanting John Galt). She does not know which is cowardly: to
strike, thus giving up on the railroad, or to ot strike, thus interfering with
her ideals.
There are a lot of examples of this nature, which I've discussed already on the
ATLAS SHRUGGED thread. You could argue that Branden has seen many clients who
are unaffected by the emotionality in ATLAS, and are affected by guilt
ocmplexes because they aren't John Galt. But I would answer that
(1) That isn't quite fair because Branden is far more likely to come in contact
with people who have misinterpreted ATLAS in this manner than those who have
lead more productive, happier lives because of Objectivism, due to the fact
that he's a psychotherapist.
(2) The majority of Objectivists I've met have fallen into the second category
mentioned in #1
and (3) Regardless of whether people notice it or not, the fact is that ATLAS
SHRUGGED is one of the most emotional books ever written; the emotionality
seems to leap out from every page, or at least it did for me. In any case,
there is plenty of emotional conflict within the characters, and that fact is
not changed by the fact that many readers have not paid attention to that
aspect of the novel.
>This combined with her lack of empathy for the numerous villains
>she uncovered in real life, giving her attitude towards those she
>disagreed with a sense of self-righteousness, of "you are wrong and I
>have no better solution to give," that is fundamental to fascism
Ture--but I find your choice of words a little odd. The numerous villians
(meaning they truly were people like Wesley Mouch who relished the idea of
destroying individual power) or the numerous people she disagreed with?
In any case, I think it's important to separate her actual philosophy from the
way she behaved--when she acted in ways contrary to her fundamental philosophy,
it isn't fair to claim that Objectivism can lead to fascism. Instead, what I
get from Rand's behavior is that self-righteousness about *any* philosophical
system can lead to fascist tendancies.
Steph
Steph Silberstein (xn...@aol.com)
Co-moderator, self-esteem-self-help, the best self-help group on the 'Net!
"Working with what exists today to create a better tomorrow."
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> <snipped absurd and irrational commentary>
>
> *Anyone* can be an Objectivist regardless of their visible features.
Of course. I didn't claim otherwise.
> Objectivism is for *individuals* who want to pursue *their* life and
> *happiness* through reason.
As I've said before, the fact that a philosophy is advertised as
rational doesn't prove that it is rational, or that its adherents will
always behave rationally.
> The fascists, Matt, are Bill Clinton and
> friends. They are clearly racist, and anti-freedom.
You say tomato...
>> Scapegoating people for their political or philosophical beliefs
>> is no better than scapegoating them for their ethnic or religious
>> backround.
> Religious and political views are a matter of *choice*.
And, as such, are valid targets of *rational criticism.* But demonizing
entire groups of people, even when their common characteristic is a
matter of choice, isn't a form of rational criticism. Contempt is not an
argument.
> People who choose evil ideas and implement them by government
> policy should be held accountable.
I think all people should be held accountable for their actions. But
demonizing people for their political or religious beliefs confuses
*actions* with *ideas.*
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Roberson wrote:
>>>
>>> In any case, your overall point is accurate, particularly as applied
>>> to _Atlas Shrugged_: not all of Rand's villains are noticeably
>>> similar to anti-Semitic literary stereotypes.
>>
>> or less accurate as well: in "Atlas Shrugged," physical beauty
>> correlates very strongly to moral worth. I see the same parallel
>> to anti-Semitic propaganda that you do.
>
> Rand obviously considered pudgy, weak and effeminate character to
> be not aesthetically pleasing, apparantly so to did the Nazis.
> However Rand did NOT try to correlate these attributes with any
No, she correlated them to a specific set of beliefs: altruism and
collectivism.
> To say that Rand is an anti-semite for believing these attributes
> to be not aesthetically pleasing would be to say that they were
> accuratly assigned by the Nazis to the Jews.
I didn't say that Rand was an anti-Semite. I said I saw a parallel
between Rand's depiction of the individualist heroes and collectivist
villains in "Atlas Shrugged" and the depiction of Aryan "heroes" and
Jewish "villains" in anti-Semitic propaganda. In both cases, members of
one group are collectively described as physically beautiful, and
members of the other group are collectively described as physically
loathsome, apparently to help inspire us to love/hate them as the author
wishes.
> If Rand doesn't like her men pudgy and effeminate, I can hardly blame
> her.
I'm not blaming her for refusing to date fat guys. I'm questioning her
decision to correlate moral worth with physical appearance in her
fiction, when, in reality, they have little or nothing to do with one
another.
> I hardly consider being pudgy and masculine to be particularly
> desirable in a woman either. Yet if the Nazis claimed the Jewish women
> were such fifty years ago would I seem an anti-semite now?
No, but if you implied or stated that all of the members of a particular
political or religious group were fat, ugly, smelly, etc., then I would
suggest you were using a propaganda tactic similar to those used by
anti-Semites.
-- M. Ruff
Jim Klein
>Ordonez is presenting himself as one of this lot, thus my
>response. You may not of noticed the ever so subtle racism in
>Ordonez's posting that he sledge hammers you over the head with.
I didn't...could you set it out specifically, please?
I did catch his comment that clearly implied he preferred the looks of
non-European women over European women. But given that he was talking
exclusively about _looks_ and his preferences, and not anything about
the mind, I didn't really take that as racist. Is that what you mean?
I think Cindy Crawford and Farah Fawcett are _tons_ better looking than
Rosanne Barr; does that make me a racist?
>Are you aware that "eurocentric" is a postmodernist word coined by
>anti-Western types? The implications of Ordonez's posting are much
>more than you seem to realize.
They're apparently way more than I realize, since I didn't get any of
this at all. Surely you're not saying that the mere usage of
"Eurocentric" (a fairly accurate word BTW, if we ignore where some
people go with it) brings with it a whole barrelful of implications?
I'd almost buy that, if Ivan weren't so clear about what he's saying.
Unless I'm misunderstanding him, I think he's pointing out the fact
that many people of European heritage have a tendency to believe that
only folks in that class contributed to whatever progress we've made.
Indeed, you yourself wrote "Oh yah, those horrible Europeans that
brought us logic, science, Renaissance art, scientific engineering and
the rights of man. Gee, what a travesty that they ever existed. We
need jungle savages and strange mystical rituals!"
This would seem to confirm Ivan's charge, in view of the facts a) that
you attribute "logic, science, Renaissance art, scientific engineering
and the rights of man" exclusively to Europeans, a rather far-fetched
claim at best; and b) you loosely imply that there are two sorts of
folks in the world---Europeans and jungle savages.
I wonder...upon consideration, would you choose to reword that comment?
If so, I think you ought to. If not, why not?
And do you have anything specific--either direct or indirect--that
would demonstrate Ivan to be a racist? I'm curious because I think
Ivan's a _very_ strong individualist, which to me is the opposite of a
racist. I detect lots of altruism [English] in his ethics, but almost
no collectivism. In fact, I believe he's bringing this stuff up in
order to be _anti_-collectivist. But if I'm wrong, I'd like to know.
And then when you're done with those tough questions, it'll be a
cakewalk for you to address the simple one in the other thread!
jk
Jim Klein
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I'm not blaming her for refusing to date fat guys. I'm questioning her
>decision to correlate moral worth with physical appearance in her
>fiction, when, in reality, they have little or nothing to do with one
>another.
But that's false; they _do_ have something to do with each other.
Obviously genetic traits aren't alterable, but the majority of how a
person appears is subsequent to the _choices_ he/she makes. Therefore,
it's not unreasonable to demonstrate a correlation.
I'm not denying that such a correlation can be carried too far, nor
commenting whether Rand did or did not do that. But the claim here
that they "have little or nothing to do with one another" is wrong.
jk
Jim Klein
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>As I've said before, the fact that a philosophy is advertised as
>rational doesn't prove that it is rational, or that its adherents will
>always behave rationally.
This is EASILY the early front-runner for "Understatement of the Year!"
jk
jal...@icsi.net
Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
[...]
> Don't be such a baby. I don't find Europeans to be ugly; I just don't find
> them to be more beautiful in average than people of any other ethnicities.
> What I find distasteful is the *idea* that they are more beautiful.
Listen, that is *your* idea that you have arbitrarily imputed to Rand. You
can make up any argument. And, btw, whether you find Europeans ugly wasn't
my concern, it was that you said it was "distasteful", as if there were
something morally wrong with it. I see now that your problem was with an
argument Rand never made!
> And by the way, logic, science, art, and scientific engineering were
> discovered independently by multiple cultures.
Art, yes, but the art wasn't on the scale of renaissance art. Science,
logic and scientific engineering definitely not. These were exclusive to the
West and the *reason* the West rose as it did.
Iván Ordóñez
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I did catch his comment that clearly implied he preferred the looks of
>non-European women over European women.
Clearly implied? Sorry if I gave that impression. What I meant was that I
do not prefer the looks of European people over the looks of other people.
I also meant that I find the idea of finding a correlation between
ethnicity and beauty distasteful, as when people use "nordic looking" and
"beautiful" as equivalent.
Iván Ordóñez
>In article <iordonez-090...@cvl219084.columbus.rr.com>,
> Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Don't be such a baby. I don't find Europeans to be ugly; I just don't find
>> them to be more beautiful in average than people of any other ethnicities.
>> What I find distasteful is the *idea* that they are more beautiful.
>
> Listen, that is *your* idea that you have arbitrarily imputed to Rand.
Arbitrarily? I find her choice of descriptions of what she considered to
be beautiful people in her fiction to be cery clear evidence.
> You
>can make up any argument. And, btw, whether you find Europeans ugly wasn't
>my concern, it was that you said it was "distasteful", as if there were
>something morally wrong with it.
Yes, there is something morally wrong in the idea that ethnicity and
beauty are correlated. Unfortunately it will take humanity still several
decades to get rid of this abominable idea.
jal...@icsi.net
Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
> In article <79r2jv$kk6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@icsi.net wrote:
> [...]
> > That, apparently, is the view of the multiculturialist crowd, who emph
> > asize
> >this point. Ordonez is presenting himself as one of this lot, thus my
> >response.
> It's really funny when somebody else tells me what I think. I am not
> presenting myself as a multiculturalist; your belief that I am reflects
> nothing but your own prejudices.
But your views are multiculturialist.
> > You may not of noticed the ever so subtle racism in Ordonez's
> >posting that he sledge hammers you over the head with.
> This is so despicable that it doesn't even deserve a response.
Well, what you stated smacked of racism. When you stated that AS was
distasteful because of the European look of the characters, that hit me wrong.
> I will,
> however, open a parenthesis for a grammar flame, because it's a pet peeve
> of mine: "may not of"???? what the hell does the particle "of" have to do
> with the verb "have," other than that they sound similarly in the mind of
> the linguistically challenged?
You could well be right. I've never had a good English course. The public
schools here are dreadful, and I am an unfortunate victim! But, thanks for
the tip!
> I never understood how people who can
> actually read and write could be capable of such an error.
But, then, I can't quite understand how people who can read and write can
make up out of whole cloth arguments that don't exist, as you did wrt AS.
> ...Must be a
> monolingual or monocultural thing.
"monocultural"? Now *that* is the jargon of a multiculturialist. Where
are you picking this stuff up? Btw, I have learned some German, Spanish and
Greek, and I did live the first years of my life in Canada, which is a
somewhat different from the U.S.
> [...]
> > Are you aware that "eurocentric" is a postmodernist word coined by
> >anti-Western types? The implications of Ordonez's posting are much more
than
> >you seem to realize.
> Are you aware that you are in danger of drowning in your own bulshit?
> Eurocentrism is a perfectly valid concept, that reflects a very real
> ideology: that Europe is somehow more important, more beautiful, more
> significant than the rest of the world.
In many significant ways Europe *is* objectively better, and *this* is what
the multiculturialists don't like and wish to attack. In point of fact, at
its best, it blows away any other civilization. I'm speaking historically
here, as today most cultures have picked up many of the European ideas and
have improved as a result.
> It is a view that has
> unfortunately been very prevalent until recently. Incidentaly, such a
> view, in a very restricted, extreme way, was central to fascism.
Fascism? No. Fascism is a collectivist phenomenon, based on the view that
society is above the individual.
> If there are any implications in these posts, they stem from the fact that
> by rejecting the reality of Eurocentrism you are just showing that you are
> willing to go to extreme lengths to try to cover the sun with a finger.
Here you are again defending what you claimed not to believe. As to me, I
am largely Eurocentric. For all of the great things that have come out of
Europe I am eternally thankful. I don't want to cover the sun, I want to
glory in its warmth and light! However, I love anything of value. There is
a great deal about Japanese culture, for instance, which I love.
> It
> is ironic that an objectivist, supossedly quite infatuated with reality,
> would reject it whenever it is convenient.
What am I rejecting?
> Next you are going to say that
> racism is just an invention of the Left,
I don't state that. It is promoted by the left, but it has been around
forever.
> after accusing me of being one of its members.
Your words are what I'm going by here.
John Alway
> In <79r2jv$kk6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jal...@icsi.net writes:
> >Ordonez is presenting himself as one of this lot, thus my
> >Ordonez's posting that he sledge hammers you over the head with.
> I didn't...could you set it out specifically, please?
The idea that the European look is "distasteful" is what I was
responding to. This is meant as a moral evaluation, not an esthetic
one.
As to the multicultural issue, it is an objective fact that Europe,
at its best, was far better than any other civilization in significant
areas of life. It was not only superior, but far superior. What a
person like Ordonez will do is believe that if you promote a high value
this somehow means you are not objective. Well, he should realize that
something things actually are better than other things. Another thing
often done is making the connection between race and achievement. The
achievements of the West are the result of *individuals*, not a "race".
Of course, this is not to say that other civilizations haven't
produced great things, or that I can't admire other civilizations,
because I do, and should, admire great achievements wherever I find
them.
...John
Christopher Roberson
: In article <1999020923...@centipede.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
:>: Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
:>:> Not physical beauty, but Rand's archaic, Eurocentric conception of
:>:> physical beauty. Which I happen to find rather distasteful.
: [...]
:> And don't forget: those Europeans were able to come up with logic,
:> science, the rights of man, and the Renaissance because they were white.
: That, apparently, is the view of the multiculturialist crowd, who emphasize
: this point. Ordonez is presenting himself as one of this lot, thus my
: response. You may not of noticed the ever so subtle racism in Ordonez's
: posting that he sledge hammers you over the head with.
[...]
:> Can we please, henceforth, try to avoid ludicrous straw-man arguments?
: I'm sorry, but I detect no strawman.
:> It's hard for me to believe that John Alway could, with a straight face,
:> really claim that Ivan meant anything like what John seems to be ascribing
:> to him.
: Are you aware that "eurocentric" is a postmodernist word coined by
: anti-Western types? The implications of Ordonez's posting are much more
: than
: you seem to realize.
I am dubious about your folk-etymological assessment of the term
'Eurocentric', and about your eagerness to derive implications from Ivan's
use of it.
As far as I know, the term 'Eurocentric' has been around for several
decades, longer than "postmodernism." And as far as I know, "Eurocentrism"
is supposed to be the view that European culture is superior to all others
in virtually all aspects; the notion that a belief or tradition can be
assessed in virtue of its origin in European culture. That's not a
particularly convincing view, in my opinion. I see no reason to treat
European culture as inherently better than others; it ought to be judged
by the same standards.
:>Incidentally, I'm not particularly pleased with the implications of the
:>phrase 'jungle savages'.
: Why? Are you making the claim that they don't exist?
There are jungle savages; and there are urban savages, and suburban
savages as well. Why focus on "jungle" savages? Whom, exactly, are you
referring to? Which cultures? What, specifically, do they believe? Or are
you just relying on familiar mass-culture images of "the jungle"?
:> There are savages all over the world, and most of
:>them aren't found in jungles. Same with strange mystical rituals.
: You'll have to show me how this dovetails with my comment. You see, I'm
: attacking the multiculturialists, who Ordonez is representing here.
: Multiculturialists put down the west and hold up every two bit civilization
: they can find.
I am not persuaded that you have any solid basis for ascribing these views
to Ordonez.
John Alway
> > Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Don't be such a baby. I don't find Europeans to be ugly; I just don't find
> >> them to be more beautiful in average than people of any other ethnicities.
> >> What I find distasteful is the *idea* that they are more beautiful.
> >
> > Listen, that is *your* idea that you have arbitrarily imputed to Rand.
>
> Arbitrarily? I find her choice of descriptions of what she considered to
> be beautiful people in her fiction to be cery clear evidence.
The "most beautiful" idea is *yours*, not Rands. Apparently you
are of the view that Ayn Rand should have included one beautiful person
from each society in the world. Ayn Rand lived most of her life in the
West. She naturally acquired tastes in Western men. Had she grown up
elsewhere she'd have naturally included men of those cultures. This is
*all* there is to that issue. You act as if she were saying to
herself "we can't include those Eskimos, or Arabs," which is entirely a
fabrication of your own mind. I doubt she gave any of that one moment
of her attention.
It's like this, Ivan. Imagine that someone from Japan write a
book and includes *only* Japanese people, and in there includes
idealized beautiful people. Would you have a problem with that? I
sure wouldn't.
> > You
> >can make up any argument. And, btw, whether you find Europeans ugly wasn't
> >my concern, it was that you said it was "distasteful", as if there were
> >something morally wrong with it.
> Yes, there is something morally wrong in the idea that ethnicity and
> beauty are correlated.
Rand never even remotely made such a point. I appreciate the
lesson in grammar, but there is the bigger problem of reading
comprehension here.
>Unfortunately it will take humanity still several
> decades to get rid of this abominable idea.
I suppose when their reading comprehension goes up they'll realize
the problem isn't nearly so bad as first believed.
...John
John Alway
> jal...@icsi.net wrote:
[...]
> : Are you aware that "eurocentric" is a postmodernist word coined by
> : anti-Western types? The implications of Ordonez's posting are much more
> : than
> : you seem to realize.
> I am dubious about your folk-etymological assessment of the term
> 'Eurocentric', and about your eagerness to derive implications from Ivan's
> use of it.
Eurocentric is certainly a pejorative term used today by
anti-Westerners. As to Ordonez, he is proving in posting after posting
to me that this is precisely the way he thinks.
> As far as I know, the term 'Eurocentric' has been around for several
> decades, longer than "postmodernism."
Here are the definitions of Eurocentric and Postmodern from Webster's
on-line dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
Main Entry: Eu·ro·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "yur-&-'sen-trik
Function: adjective
Date: 1963
: centered on Europe or the Europeans; especially : reflecting a
tendency to interpret the world in terms of western and especially
European values and experiences
- Eu·ro·cen·trism /-"tri-z&m/ noun
Main Entry: post·mod·ern
Pronunciation: "pOs(t)-'mä-d&rn, ÷-'mä-d(&-)r&n
Function: adjective
Date: 1949
: of, relating to, or being any of several movements (as in art,
architecture, or literature) that are reactions against the philosophy
and practices of modern movements and are typically marked by revival of
traditional elements and techniques
- post·mod·ern·ism /-d&r-"ni-z&m/ noun
- post·mod·ern·ist /-nist/ adjective or noun
> is supposed to be the view that European culture is superior to all others
> in virtually all aspects; the notion that a belief or tradition can be
> assessed in virtue of its origin in European culture.
Not true. It's the idea that it is *evil* to take the position
that European culture is superior, even though it has been vastly
superior in many important ways.
> That's not a
> particularly convincing view, in my opinion. I see no reason to treat
> European culture as inherently better than others; it ought to be judged
> by the same standards.
"Inherently"? It is better because of the ideas that sprang from
it.
> :>Incidentally, I'm not particularly pleased with the implications of the
> :>phrase 'jungle savages'.
> : Why? Are you making the claim that they don't exist?
> There are jungle savages; and there are urban savages, and suburban
> savages as well. Why focus on "jungle" savages?
Urban and suburban savages would have made no sense, since they
are an attendant fixture of corrupt ideas in the west. I use the term
"jungle savages" because the ideas of these cultures are precisely what
multiculturialists like to raise up as if they are equal to the West.
African studies are supposed to be on a par with Western studies.
>Whom, exactly, are you
> referring to? Which cultures? What, specifically, do they believe? Or are
> you just relying on familiar mass-culture images of "the jungle"?
Cultures without writing, for instance. Cultures without writing
are doomed to savagery. I don't know what your point is by this,
surely you realize I'll blow you out of the water if you want to
actually delve in depth into a specific culture and then try to compare
it with the West. Or maybe you aren't, which would be pretty sad.
...John
Matt Durand
>
> Matt Durand wrote:
> >
> > Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold wrote:
> >>
> >> Christopher Roberson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In any case, your overall point is accurate, particularly as applied
> >>> to _Atlas Shrugged_: not all of Rand's villains are noticeably
> >>> similar to anti-Semitic literary stereotypes.
> >>
> >> If it makes you feel any better, Chris, I think your point is more
> >> or less accurate as well: in "Atlas Shrugged," physical beauty
> >> correlates very strongly to moral worth. I see the same parallel
> >> to anti-Semitic propaganda that you do.
> >
> > Rand obviously considered pudgy, weak and effeminate character to
> > be not aesthetically pleasing, apparantly so to did the Nazis.
> > However Rand did NOT try to correlate these attributes with any
> > specific race...
>
> No, she correlated them to a specific set of beliefs: altruism and
> collectivism.
As I stated in my previous post, I don't dispute this.
> > To say that Rand is an anti-semite for believing these attributes
> > to be not aesthetically pleasing would be to say that they were
> > accuratly assigned by the Nazis to the Jews.
>
> I didn't say that Rand was an anti-Semite. I said I saw a parallel
> between Rand's depiction of the individualist heroes and collectivist
> villains in "Atlas Shrugged" and the depiction of Aryan "heroes" and
> Jewish "villains" in anti-Semitic propaganda. In both cases, members of
> one group are collectively described as physically beautiful, and
> members of the other group are collectively described as physically
> loathsome, apparently to help inspire us to love/hate them as the author
> wishes.
Again, I agreed that the villains were over-uglified.
> > If Rand doesn't like her men pudgy and effeminate, I can hardly blame
> > her.
>
> I'm not blaming her for refusing to date fat guys. I'm questioning her
> decision to correlate moral worth with physical appearance in her
> fiction, when, in reality, they have little or nothing to do with one
> another.
Again...
"I won't dispute that Rand did ascribe these desirable physical traits
to
her heroes and opposite to the villains. Which would not be accurate,
however, I don't believe this was something she advanced as true: that
one could judge moral worth by attractiveness. Such an assertion is
contradicted in other parts of her writing, fiction and non-fiction."
> > I hardly consider being pudgy and masculine to be particularly
> > desirable in a woman either. Yet if the Nazis claimed the Jewish women
> > were such fifty years ago would I seem an anti-semite now?
>
> No, but if you implied or stated that all of the members of a particular
> political or religious group were fat, ugly, smelly, etc., then I would
> suggest you were using a propaganda tactic similar to those used by
> anti-Semites.
I don't think Rand was trying to say such a thing explicitly. Obviously
it is not true that snake-like politicians or whomever will appear so --
IRL they're smart enough to know that appearance *is* important to being
elected or appealing to and being accorded respect by people in general
(ala Fahrenheit 451). However, I believe what she was implying, and
which Mr. Klein pointed out, is that their moral worth as they perceive
it, can potentially manifest in their overall demeanor, which is not
implausable.
People's psychological, and to the extent that they do manifest,
philosophical traits can affect a person's self-esteem, and influence
the importance they place on appearance. Being pudgy, effeminate and a
general slouch are not necessarily genetic traits at all, but can be the
result of a psychological defficiency, especially low self-esteem. I
think that Rand definatly saw that certain psychological traits were
connected to philosophy, or more accuratly, that adhering to a proper
philosophic tack could foster self-esteem. This was definatly borne out
by Branden in _The Six Pillars_ or _The Art of Living Consciously_. So
basically I think it is reasonable to ascribe a certain demeanor,
mannerism or physical traits gotten at by sloppiness rather than through
inheritance, based on the various ideas in one's head, however, only to
a certain point.
I think Rand may have taken it unrealistcally far, in that nearly all of
her villains, who were such because of their ideas and not birth, rather
universally manifested their inner weaknesses on the outside, which is
very arguably not the case IRL. Even if a person *does* have low
self-esteem doesn't mean they aren't self-aware enough to know that they
don't want everyone else to know it ;-)
However, in AS, the circumstances and the climate wrought by the ideas
these men held, because they were in positions of power, were *testing*
their moral worth. Rand does show, especially in Jim Taggart, a
simultaneous retreat both to and away from introspection on his ideas,
when confronted with the outcomes of them in practice. One's self-esteem
would tend to take hits if those things one believed truthful were being
proven not so in reality. Jim could only watch the Reardens of his world
prove his scheming unsound and fundamentally flawed so many times before
his shoulders drooped a little. As I recall, Rand emphasized the
difference in Jim's behaviour after graduating college, that he was
instilled confidence in his ideas there. Why not? They were sanctioned
by the pillars of academia after all. When faced with the heroes,
Rearden especially, no doubt because he hadn't the education Jim did yet
continued to show Taggart's posturing to be a sham, and it is when Jim
is proven inadequate that this self-confidence is stripped away, in that
sense it was never justly held. Meanwhile, from what I remember, someone
like Mr. Thompson doesn't appear to let a little thing like being wrong
get to him and thusly he doesn't lapse in his appearance or charisma, so
it isn't *entirely* one-sided.
I'll just say that the characters including the villains, in the
Fountainhead were portrayed much more realistically (especially with
Toohey), however, Rand's error was more of taking a thing too far, one
might assume for contrast. Her justification in assigning physical
characteristics is not wholely unsound, just not implented soundly in a
robust sense. Just because they're collectivists doesn't mean Rand can
change the fact that they *are* individuals and so should have differing
contexts for their beliefs, some leading one way or another depending.
Perhaps it is just a bit of irony that Rand assigned a collective set of
characteristics to the self-professed collectivists in AS just to see
how life is like when A isn't A and individuals don't have individual
beliefs, but collective ones all leading the same direction.
Matt
Christopher Roberson
:> : Are you aware that "eurocentric" is a postmodernist word coined by
:> : anti-Western types? The implications of Ordonez's posting are much
:> : more than you seem to realize.
:
:> I am dubious about your folk-etymological assessment of the term
:> 'Eurocentric', and about your eagerness to derive implications from
:> Ivan's use of it.
:
: Eurocentric is certainly a pejorative term used today by
: anti-Westerners. As to Ordonez, he is proving in posting after posting
: to me that this is precisely the way he thinks.
I don't agree with your assessment of Ivan's recent posts. But in any
case, you ascribed these nutjob anti-Western views to him before you'd
seen any further posts from him; you ascribed them solely on the basis of
his using the term 'Eurocentric'. How reasonable is that? Is it really so
obvious that he had those views in mind?
And yes, anti-Westerners do use the term 'Eurocentric'; that doesn't mean
that anyone who uses the term is anti-Western. Marxists use the word
'capitalism'; that doesn't make you a Marxist.
:> As far as I know, the term 'Eurocentric' has been around for several
:> decades, longer than "postmodernism."
:
: Here are the definitions of Eurocentric and Postmodern from Webster's
: on-line dictionary:
: http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
:
: Main Entry: Euároácenátric
: Pronunciation: "yur-&-'sen-trik
: Function: adjective
: Date: 1963
: centered on Europe or the Europeans; especially : reflecting a
: tendency to interpret the world in terms of western and especially
: European values and experiences
: - Euároácenátrism /-"tri-z&m/ noun
:
:
: Main Entry: postámodáern
: Pronunciation: "pOs(t)-'m-d&rn, Ö-'m-d(&-)r&n
: Function: adjective
: Date: 1949
: of, relating to, or being any of several movements (as in art,
: architecture, or literature) that are reactions against the philosophy
: and practices of modern movements and are typically marked by revival of
: traditional elements and techniques
: - postámodáernáism /-d&r-"ni-z&m/ noun
: - postámodáernáist /-nist/ adjective or noun
Yes, there has been a "postmodern" movement in architecture for quite a
while. But I don't think that's what you were referring to.
"Postmodernism" in the humanities is a much more recent development,
datable probably to Lyotard's "La condition postmoderne," in 1979. It
didn't really come into common parlance in the humanities until the late
1980s, in my experience. 'Eurocentric' was a very common term much
earlier. As you note above, it has been used since 1963, and I can testify
to hearing it for years before I'd heard 'postmodern.'
Incidentally, note that the definition you offer --
: It's the idea that it is *evil* to take the position that European
: culture is superior, even though it has been vastly superior in many
: important ways.
-- has little or no resemblance to the dictionary definition you posted.
This makes me wonder even more why you think you were justified in
deducing in such detail what you thought Ivan was implying by its use.
:> :>Incidentally, I'm not particularly pleased with the implications
:> :>of the phrase 'jungle savages'.
:
:> : Why? Are you making the claim that they don't exist?
:
:> There are jungle savages; and there are urban savages, and suburban
:> savages as well. Why focus on "jungle" savages?
: Urban and suburban savages would have made no sense, since they
: are an attendant fixture of corrupt ideas in the west.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Maybe that all urban and
suburban areas are in the West? No, probably not that... what, then?
: I use the term
: "jungle savages" because the ideas of these cultures are precisely what
: multiculturialists like to raise up as if they are equal to the West.
: African studies are supposed to be on a par with Western studies.
So by "jungle savages" you mean Africans? (Does anyone else see the
implications of that phrase starting to surface here?)
:> Whom, exactly, are you referring to? Which cultures? What,
specifically,
:> do they believe? Or are you just relying on familiar mass-culture
:> images of "the jungle"?
: Cultures without writing, for instance. Cultures without writing are
: doomed to savagery.
So by "jungle savages" you mean cultures without writing? (And just what
is "savagery," anyway?)
I'm really not following your argument. There are jungles in Africa, but
they don't cover much of the continent. The vast majority of Africans have
never seen a jungle. And many of the cultures in Africa have been literate
for a very long time. (Not all individual Africans are literate, of
course; but then again not all individual Westerners are literate. Indeed
most Europeans during the Renaissance were illiterate.)
: I don't know what your point is by this, surely
: you realize I'll blow you out of the water if you want to actually
: delve in depth into a specific culture and then try to compare it with
: the West. Or maybe you aren't, which would be pretty sad.
Ooo, I'm really shaking now.
Sure, let's talk about a specific culture. How about Tokugawa-era Japan?
No, wait, they were literate. And they didn't live in jungles. But I'd be
happy to talk about them with regard to the West.
Golly, let's see... India? There are some jungles in India, but that's a
literate culture. Of course I'd be happy to talk about India as well.
Maybe we should talk about African culture, since you mentioned it. Do you
mean North African or sub-Saharan African culture? Probably sub-Saharan,
since North Africa doesn't have any jungles, and it's been a literate area
for millenia. So is it sub-Saharan African culture you want to single out
as particularly pathetic in comparison to the West?
As my post should indicate, I am not sure exactly what your overall thesis
is. Is Western culture better in almost all respects than all others? Or
is there some particular aspect of Western culture that stands out? Visual
art? Music? Philosophy? Literature? Or all of the above?
lance
>> Could someone here explain to me what they feel is the source of
>> such accusations? Even if you disagree, you must have some idea
>> of what part of the philosophy or Ayn Rand's writings inspire
>> such charges?
> Dishonesty. There is simply no way one could honestly twist Ayn Rand's
> words that much.
> "No man may initiate - do you hear me? No man may start the use of
> physical force against others." (Galt's Speech, FNI, 133).
> "We are radicals for *Capitalism*."
The problem is that many Fascists can (and have) utter the very same words
Lance
--
<http://members.home.net/sharp/hel8.jpg>
jal...@icsi.net
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> jal...@icsi.net wrote:
[...]
> As I've said before, the fact that a philosophy is advertised as
> rational doesn't prove that it is rational, or that its adherents will
> always behave rationally.
But this is obvious and hardly of any importance, unless you can show where
Objectivism is not rational.
> > The fascists, Matt, are Bill Clinton and
> > friends. They are clearly racist, and anti-freedom.
> You say tomato...
That Clinton is a racist, anti-freedom and a fascist is supported by the
evidence. If you want evidence I'm more than willing to provide it.
Warning, it's going to be *really* easy.
> >> Scapegoating people for their political or philosophical beliefs
> >> is no better than scapegoating them for their ethnic or religious
> >> backround.
> > Religious and political views are a matter of *choice*.
> And, as such, are valid targets of *rational criticism.*
Right.
> But demonizing
> entire groups of people, even when their common characteristic is a
> matter of choice, isn't a form of rational criticism.
Nobody has done that. These people are demonized *because* of their views,
not their *looks*. They are given ugly features, I would suspect, to
highlight Ayn Rand's view of their ideas. You have cause and effect
backwards. I read the book and I can't fathom how any intelligent person
could arrive at the conclusions you or Ordonez do. That it was even on your
radar screen is fascinating to me.
> Contempt is not an
> argument.
Contempt for what? What do you think AS is about?
> > People who choose evil ideas and implement them by government
> > policy should be held accountable.
> I think all people should be held accountable for their actions. But
> demonizing people for their political or religious beliefs confuses
> *actions* with *ideas.*
Ideas are the *cause* of purposeful actions. You should chasten someone
who holds racist ideas, and you should praise someone who upholds reason.
Lavos999
>> "No man may initiate - do you hear me? No man may start the use of
>> physical force against others." (Galt's Speech, FNI, 133).
>
>> "We are radicals for *Capitalism*."
>
>The problem is that many Fascists can (and have) utter the very same words
(1) Which Fascists have advocated the Non-Initiation of Force principle?
(2) How could Fascism be possible if the NIOF were consistently applied?
------------------------------------
The Red New Deal with a Soviet seal
Endorsed by a Moscow hand
The strange result of a foreign cult
In a liberty-loving land.
Iván Ordóñez
dishonest; I don't really have a reason to think you are either; I think
you are just wrong. My flame was uncalled for.
In article <79skfd$cr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jal...@icsi.net wrote:
[...]
> But your views are multiculturialist.
Really? And how do you reach that conclusion? See, I do realize that some
cultures are pretty fucked up, some more than others. I do think, however,
that every culture has elements than make it interesting and worth
familiarizing with; we can only enrich ourselves by learning the
worldviews of other peoples. Now, if that is a multiculturalist view, as
opposed to the parrochial, isolationist view that only one's own culture
matters, then I'm guilty as charged.
[...]
> Well, what you stated smacked of racism. When you stated that AS was
>distasteful because of the European look of the characters, that hit me wrong.
I have clarified that enough. You should take back your accusation of racism.
[...]
>> ...Must be a
>> monolingual or monocultural thing.
>
> "monocultural"? Now *that* is the jargon of a multiculturialist.
"Monocultural" is a perfectly valid concept: it describes people who are
familiar with only one culture. Still, my comment ws in jest.
[...]
> In many significant ways Europe *is* objectively better,
And in other equally significant ways it is objectively worse.
> and *this* is what
>the multiculturialists don't like and wish to attack.
Well, not me. Please dismantle that strawman already.
> In point of fact, at
>its best, it blows away any other civilization.
And at its worst it's among the most brutal, cruel and barbaric.
[...]
>> It is a view that has
>> unfortunately been very prevalent until recently. Incidentaly, such a
>> view, in a very restricted, extreme way, was central to fascism.
>
> Fascism? No. Fascism is a collectivist phenomenon, based on the view that
>society is above the individual.
So? Eurocentrism is a collectivist notion.
[...] As to me, I
>am largely Eurocentric. For all of the great things that have come out of
>Europe I am eternally thankful.
That is not what being Eurocentric means. Your admission is an admission
of irrationality, which I'm sure you are carrying out unwittingly.
[...]
> Your words are what I'm going by here.
Then I must insist that you pay more attention.
jal...@icsi.net
Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
> John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
[...]
> : Eurocentric is certainly a pejorative term used today by
> : anti-Westerners. As to Ordonez, he is proving in posting after posting
> : to me that this is precisely the way he thinks.
> I don't agree with your assessment of Ivan's recent posts.
I don't agree with your assessment of my assessment!
> But in any
> case, you ascribed these nutjob anti-Western views to him before you'd
> seen any further posts from him; you ascribed them solely on the basis of
> his using the term 'Eurocentric'.
That's not true. I have read many of his postings over the years. I know
of his basic tendencies and beliefs. For instance, he attacked Americans as
"gringos" in a posting a month or so ago. Anyway, "Eurocentric" is used
almost exclusively by those who have an anti-Western point to make.
[...]
> Yes, there has been a "postmodern" movement in architecture for quite a
> while. But I don't think that's what you were referring to.
> "Postmodernism" in the humanities is a much more recent development,
> datable probably to Lyotard's "La condition postmoderne," in 1979. It
> didn't really come into common parlance in the humanities until the late
> 1980s, in my experience. 'Eurocentric' was a very common term much
> earlier. As you note above, it has been used since 1963, and I can testify
> to hearing it for years before I'd heard 'postmodern.'
Two points: 1> I didn't say that Eurocentricism was a term coined by
postmodernists, but by anti-Westerners. I could be wrong on this, but this is
the strong sense I get from the fact of and use of the term. 2> You can get a
brief history of postmodernism here:
http://vlsi.uwaterloo.ca/~khkwok/postmodernism/node15.html
> Incidentally, note that the definition you offer --
> : It's the idea that it is *evil* to take the position that European
> : culture is superior, even though it has been vastly superior in many
> : important ways.
> -- has little or no resemblance to the dictionary definition you posted.
It's not a definition, but a description of the implications of the word.
It's like the difference between using the word "white" and "honky". The
first is neutral, while the second (in many contexts) is an attack on
caucasians.
> This makes me wonder even more why you think you were justified in
> deducing in such detail what you thought Ivan was implying by its use.
Because I hear the word used today, and in virtually every instance it is
used to *slam* the west.
[...]
> :> There are jungle savages; and there are urban savages, and suburban
> :> savages as well. Why focus on "jungle" savages?
> : Urban and suburban savages would have made no sense, since they
> : are an attendant fixture of corrupt ideas in the west.
> I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Maybe that all urban and
> suburban areas are in the West? No, probably not that... what, then?
Okay, you're right. I'm sorry. I automatically think of the west when I
think of suburbs, which was a concept that arose from *America* in the early
part of this century I believe.
<deleted "jungle savage" nit picking because it is off point>
> :> Whom, exactly, are you referring to? Which cultures? What,
> specifically,
> :> do they believe? Or are you just relying on familiar mass-culture
> :> images of "the jungle"?
> : Cultures without writing, for instance. Cultures without writing are
> : doomed to savagery.
>
> So by "jungle savages" you mean cultures without writing? (And just what
> is "savagery," anyway?)
I'm sorry that it's going to take *this much* to explain to Christopher.
There are certain things I take for granted when I explain any subject. For
instance, when I describe how a car works I don't usually think I'm going to
have to describe the tensile strength of the metal, or the fact that they are
faster than chariots. But, with some people you have to explain *everything*,
and this makes for tedious work. Chris is a modern philosopher, which rather
explains a lot.
First, Chris has got to look at the big picture. He has to see that the
West has done fantastic things on a scale that no other culture has come
close to. I think it is a matter of basic honesty to note this. Science and
logic had their beginnings in the West. The great art and engineering that
followed were in the West. The idea of the rights of man was a Western
concept which arose form science and logic, and from the concept of rights
rose a division of labor society, and unbelievable levels of wealth and
prosperity for everyone, with no end in sight. The promise that freedom and
capitalism gives everyone is quite simply *awesome*. The West "at its best"
has been _the_ best. Note I emphasize "at its best". At its worst its been
as bad as any society, and worse in a few cases (nazism, and communism, for
instance).
The ideas of the West, those which have come from reason and science, are
the ideas upon which man can build and advance his life to heights undreamed
in the distant past. With these tools man has improved his life
immeasurably. Thank goodness for the west.
Forget the phrase "jungle savages", because it is *not* the point. The
point is that multiculturalists take lesser societies (which means every
other society) and claim they are equal to or better than the West. They try
to claim equality for societies that didn't have anywhere near the level of
achievement of the West, and in the process of doing this they vilify anyone
who dares to point out the obvious: the west is vastly superior in many
significant ways.
[...]
> : I don't know what your point is by this, surely
> : you realize I'll blow you out of the water if you want to actually
> : delve in depth into a specific culture and then try to compare it with
> : the West. Or maybe you aren't, which would be pretty sad.
> Ooo, I'm really shaking now.
> Sure, let's talk about a specific culture. How about Tokugawa-era Japan?
> No, wait, they were literate. And they didn't live in jungles. But I'd be
> happy to talk about them with regard to the West.
Sure, but make sure it's at a time when there was little Western influence.
After that, we can compare them at their best to the west at their best.
Science, math, literature, the whole nine yards. I'll bring up Galileo and
Newton in science; Archimedes and Euler in math; Mozart and Michelangelo in
art; Edmund Rostand and Shakespeare in literature. All of these men were
informed by Western ideas of the world which allowed them to become as great
as they became.
> Golly, let's see... India? There are some jungles in India, but that's a
> literate culture. Of course I'd be happy to talk about India as well.
[...]
> As my post should indicate, I am not sure exactly what your overall thesis
> is. Is Western culture better in almost all respects than all others? Or
> is there some particular aspect of Western culture that stands out? Visual
> art? Music? Philosophy? Literature? Or all of the above?
Well, I've tried to emphasize *science*, "reason", then "art", "the rights
of man" and all of the attendant benefits that arose from these. However, if
I were to sum it up I'd do it this way: "The society which provides the ideas
that are of most benefit to man's life and happiness on earth is of most
value."
In the end, of course, I look for the *best* in any culture. I don't care
about the source, I care only about the quality. I happen to be taking on
multiculturialism here, which serves to vilify the west.
Iván Ordóñez
[...] For instance, he attacked Americans as
>"gringos" in a posting a month or so ago.
I attacked? Don't be silly. "Gringo" is not a derogatory term. It is just
used as a shortcut because it is too complicated to say "Unitedstatean."
Sometimes I also use "USAmerican," but it's kind of hard to make sense of
it in speaking.
Christopher Roberson
: In article <1999021023...@seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
: Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
:> But in any
:> case, you ascribed these nutjob anti-Western views to him
:> [Ivan Ordonez] before you'd seen any further
:> posts from him; you ascribed them solely on the basis
:> of his using the term 'Eurocentric'.
: That's not true. I have read many of his postings over the years. I know
: of his basic tendencies and beliefs. For instance, he attacked Americans as
: "gringos" in a posting a month or so ago. Anyway, "Eurocentric" is used
: almost exclusively by those who have an anti-Western point to make.
I think you may underestimate Ivan's sense of humor. Or perhaps I'm
overestimating yours. Gringos! :D
I disagree with your judgment about who uses "Eurocentric," and why. In
the homeland of the Ku Klux Klan, there's plenty of reason to encourage
people not to be mindlessly biased in favor of their own native culture.
And that's the context in which I've usually seen the word used:
encouraging openness to the achievements of _all_ cultures.
Some who encourage openness follow it up with a denigration of the West;
but I think you're taking the stance of a minority and claiming,
mistakenly, that almost everyone who uses the word agrees with the
minority stance.
: [...]
:> :> There are jungle savages; and there are urban savages, and suburban
:> :> savages as well. Why focus on "jungle" savages?
:> : Urban and suburban savages would have made no sense, since they
:> : are an attendant fixture of corrupt ideas in the west.
:> I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Maybe that all urban and
:> suburban areas are in the West? No, probably not that... what, then?
: Okay, you're right. I'm sorry. I automatically think of the west when I
: think of suburbs, which was a concept that arose from *America* in the
: early part of this century I believe.
Western cities were the first to develop efficient mass transit, so yes,
"suburbs" was originally a Western concept. But like a lot of Western
concepts, it's caught on elsewhere.
And although you don't need to apologize, I'll take this opportunity to
praise your honesty & integrity in admitting an error. Rare indeed on
USENET (though surprisingly common on h.p.o, by the way).
:> :> Whom, exactly, are you referring to? Which cultures? What,
:> specifically,
:> :> do they believe? Or are you just relying on familiar mass-culture
:> :> images of "the jungle"?
:> : Cultures without writing, for instance. Cultures without writing are
:> : doomed to savagery.
:>
:> So by "jungle savages" you mean cultures without writing? (And just what
:> is "savagery," anyway?)
: I'm sorry that it's going to take *this much* to explain to Christopher.
: There are certain things I take for granted when I explain any subject. For
: instance, when I describe how a car works I don't usually think I'm going to
: have to describe the tensile strength of the metal, or the fact that they are
: faster than chariots. But, with some people you have to explain *everyth
: ing*,
: and this makes for tedious work. Chris is a modern philosopher, which rather
: explains a lot.
Oh ha ha.
I'll note that your long disquisition that follows doesn't really explain
what you mean by 'savagery', which is what I was interested in hearing
about.
: First, Chris has got to look at the big picture. He has to see that the
: West has done fantastic things on a scale that no other culture has come
: close to. I think it is a matter of basic honesty to note this.
Sure, of course the West has done fantastic things on a remarkable scale.
Who'd deny that? We put a man on the moon, for God's sake.
But I'd also suggest (and I think you'd agree) that the West's most
singular achievements have been as a result of its scientific and
technological supremacy. Other cultures in the world can easily rival
Western achievements in pre-modern art, architecture, music, and
organization, to mention only a few categories of cultural achievement.
Think of Japanese visual art, the Taj Mahal, Indian classical raga, and
the Great Wall of China as representative examples.
: Science and
: logic had their beginnings in the West. The great art and engineering that
: followed were in the West. The idea of the rights of man was a Western
: concept which arose form science and logic, and from the concept of rights
: rose a division of labor society, and unbelievable levels of wealth and
: prosperity for everyone, with no end in sight.
Here's where I think your potted history of Western Civ is a little off.
Aristotelian logic had its beginnings in the West, but logic (and even a
fair amount of basic science) preceded modern technology by many
centuries. It's not clear to me that there was any simple causal
connection between the two. Consider, for example, that Arab philosophers
and mathematicians were the ones who kept Aristotelian logic alive during
the Dark Ages. But the Arabs were not the first to develop modern
technology (though of course they did invent the concept of zero & pioneer
modern astronomy).
And, uh... the division of labor society was quite far advanced long
before the Rights of Man were heard of. I think your causal ascription may
be backward, frankly.
: The promise that freedom and capitalism gives everyone is quite
: simply *awesome*. The West "at its best" has been _the_ best. Note I
: emphasize "at its best". At its worst its been as bad as any society,
: and worse in a few cases (nazism, and communism, for instance).
Well, sure. Who here is denying that? Though again I'd dissent from the
notion that Western art & humanities are obviously better than those of
other cultures. Our technology sure has been, though, until recently at
least.
BTW note that I said "Who HERE is denying that?"
: Forget the phrase "jungle savages", because it is *not* the point. The
: point is that multiculturalists take lesser societies (which means every
: other society) and claim they are equal to or better than the West. They try
: to claim equality for societies that didn't have anywhere near the level of
: achievement of the West, and in the process of doing this they vilify anyone
: who dares to point out the obvious: the west is vastly superior in many
: significant ways.
Well, if the phrase "jungle savages" is not the point, here's a bit of
unsolicited advice: try to avoid using it. I'm sure you'd agree with most
or all of the following claims:
--all peoples have been savages at some point in their history;
--although the West pioneered in science and technology and political
liberalism [classical liberalism, of course], other cultures are
just as capable as we are of using science and technology, and of
freeing themselves from political oppression; and
--great achievements have nothing to do with skin color.
I feel confident in predicting that you agree with these claims, because
I know you a little bit from this newsgroup. But to someone who doesn't
know you, well: "jungle savages" sounds pretty straightforwardly racist.
And if you don't want to give that impression, which you probably don't,
you shouldn't use the term.
: Well, I've tried to emphasize *science*, "reason", then "art", "the rights
: of man" and all of the attendant benefits that arose from these. However, if
: I were to sum it up I'd do it this way: "The society which provides the ideas
: that are of most benefit to man's life and happiness on earth is of most
: value."
: In the end, of course, I look for the *best* in any culture. I don't
: care about the source, I care only about the quality. I happen to be
: taking on multiculturialism here, which serves to vilify the west.
I have no quarrel with your assessment of Western supremacy in science.
See above for my remarks about reason, art, & politics.
As for multiculturalism, I'll repeat myself: I think you're ascribing a
minority view to people who don't necessarily hold it. Most of the
"multiculturalists" I'm familiar with don't regard themselves as opposed
to the West, but to racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and ignorance. And I
think you, too, are opposed to those things.
jal...@icsi.net
Iván Ordóñez <iord...@a.fake.address.com> wrote:
> First of all I must apologize to John Alway for calling him stupid or
> dishonest; I don't really have a reason to think you are either; I think
> you are just wrong. My flame was uncalled for.
That's good of you, Ivan.
Let me state without equivocation that I don't think you are a racist. I
understand now what you meant in your criticism of Ayn Rand. You were wrong
in that criticism, but you aren't a racist.
Multiculturialism is a tougher one. I'm still working out what your views
are here. Your terminology and postings indicate to me that you have, likely
by osmosis, picked up lots of multiculturialist ideas. But, still, when push
comes to shove you don't appear to be wedded to those kind of ideas.
Lavos999
>I attacked? Don't be silly. "Gringo" is not a derogatory term. It is just
>used as a shortcut because it is too complicated to say "Unitedstatean."
>Sometimes I also use "USAmerican," but it's kind of hard to make sense of
>it in speaking.
Why not use "American", which is the standard terminology?
Regnirps
>Yes, there has been a "postmodern" movement in architecture for quite a
>while. But I don't think that's what you were referring to
When were the writings of Derida?
Charlie Springer
Matt Durand
>
> jal...@icsi.net wrote:
> : In article <1999021023...@seawolf.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> : Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> :> But in any
> :> case, you ascribed these nutjob anti-Western views to him
> :> [Ivan Ordonez] before you'd seen any further
> :> posts from him; you ascribed them solely on the basis
> :> of his using the term 'Eurocentric'.
>
> : That's not true. I have read many of his postings over the years. I know
> : of his basic tendencies and beliefs. For instance, he attacked America
> : "gringos" in a posting a month or so ago. Anyway, "Eurocentric" is used
> : almost exclusively by those who have an anti-Western point to make.
>
> I think you may underestimate Ivan's sense of humor. Or perhaps I'm
> overestimating yours. Gringos! :D
>
> I disagree with your judgment about who uses "Eurocentric," and why. In
> the homeland of the Ku Klux Klan, there's plenty of reason to encourage
> people not to be mindlessly biased in favor of their own native culture.
> And that's the context in which I've usually seen the word used:
> encouraging openness to the achievements of _all_ cultures.
In the Ku Klux Klan you will find few guided by the chief principles of
a Western ideology: liberty, property rights, equality of man. That you
would choose them as somehow being proponents of Western thought is
telling. What has bigotry to do with the logic of Aristotle, the science
of Newton, or the crying out for freedom by Paine? "Western ideas" is an
abstraction which usually refers to the Age of Reason and Enlightenment
periods, which grew out of the rediscovery of ancient texts of mainly
Grecian origin (and correcting it where necessary), that has allowed us
to enjoy all that which others get to take for granted today.
Certainly the Europeans have not been alone in achieving advancement.
However, of the type that it is, foundational (especially re: Aristotle,
to look around you for the truth and not the heavens), it has been
self-perpetuating in its development, and so all ideas are confined to
the logistical requirements of geography and the limitations of their
respective times. The importance of the discoveries of these Europeans
in actual accordance of reason, have surpassed any and all others in
their purpose as vital tools to further understanding itself in all
areas.
Just because these advancements were made largely in Europe doesn't mean
they "own" the ideas or that anyone claiming descent from Europe will
automatically behave in accordance with these ideas. In fact it is quite
the opposite, and the rebellion against reason, the opposition to
Western culture has been most ardently challenged by the same Europeans.
Yet the philosophies of Hegel, Marx, Hitler, etc. are not associated
with Western tradition as such, but as I said, was a response to it
(most notably with Hegel and Kant, both of whom were firm critics of the
Enlightenment scholars, and who were attributed contributors to Marx's
dialectic).
John, to my knowledge, has not advocated being mindlessly biased in the
favour of one culture, in fact I recall him stating twice now this
statement:
"In the end, of course, I look for the *best* in any culture. I don't
care
about the source, I care only about the quality."
Which I would say is exactly the right sentiment. Truths can potentially
be found anywhere.
Matt
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> In <36C182...@worldnet.att.net> Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
> <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >I'm not blaming her for refusing to date fat guys. I'm questioning
> >her decision to correlate moral worth with physical appearance in
> >her fiction, when, in reality, they have little or nothing to do
> >with one another.
>
> Obviously genetic traits aren't alterable, but the majority of how a
> person appears is subsequent to the _choices_ he/she makes.
To a certain extent, we can choose to alter our appearance, and some of
the choices we make--clothing styles, etc.--may give hints as to our
beliefs, but that is very different than implying that you can tell
whether someone is a good or bad person simply by looking at them.
> Therefore, it's not unreasonable to demonstrate a correlation.
It's not unreasonable to suggest that ugliness is a sign of bad
character, or that attractiveness is evidence of goodness?
-- M. Ruff
Christopher Roberson
: Christopher Roberson wrote:
:> I disagree with your judgment about who uses "Eurocentric," and why. In
:> the homeland of the Ku Klux Klan, there's plenty of reason to encourage
:> people not to be mindlessly biased in favor of their own native culture.
:> And that's the context in which I've usually seen the word used:
:> encouraging openness to the achievements of _all_ cultures.
:
: In the Ku Klux Klan you will find few guided by the chief principles of
: a Western ideology: liberty, property rights, equality of man.
Few! How about none?
: That you would choose them as somehow being proponents of Western
: thought is telling.
Who said I was choosing them as exemplary proponents of Western thought? I
was using them as an example of closed-mindedness to anything other than
what they are personally familiar and comfortable with, i.e. Eurocentrism.
: Yet the philosophies of Hegel, Marx, Hitler, etc. are not associated
: with Western tradition as such, but as I said, was a response to it
: (most notably with Hegel and Kant, both of whom were firm critics of the
: Enlightenment scholars, and who were attributed contributors to Marx's
: dialectic).
Kant was himself an Enlightenment scholar.
: John, to my knowledge, has not advocated being mindlessly biased in the
: favour of one culture [...]
Good for him.
Christopher Roberson
: Christopher Roberson <rob...@umich.edu> wrote:
:>Yes, there has been a "postmodern" movement in architecture for quite a
:>while. But I don't think that's what you were referring to
: When were the writings of Derida?
Mostly after 1968. Derrida didn't, himself, use the word 'postmodern' --
at least not prominently.