I haven't started writing it, but I can tell you now this blog entry will be long. I'll be discussing my thoughts and reactions to an interview of Nathaniel Branden by Ken Wilber. You can find links to the interviews below if you're interested in listening to them - it's about 2.5 hours, but not bad for listening to on a long trip if you have interest in the subject. If you're going to put them on CDs you have to put Part 1 and Part 3 on a CD, and then Part 2 and Part 4 on a CD (Part 1 and 2 are too large for 1 CD). In this section I'll only be discussing Part 1 and 2, I don't know when I'll get to the next two...possibly not until next weekend.
Download Links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Background Info:
Ayn Rand is an author whose most famous work, Atlus Shrugged, is consistently rated the second most influential book in people's lives (second to The Bible). She is the founder of a school of philosophy known as Objectivism; -"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".
Nathaniel Branden was a follower of the Objectivist movement and is thought to be the basis for the main character in Atlas Shrugged (Rand's portrayal of the "perfect" man). He and Rand were romantically involved during the writing of the book and he founded the Nathaniel Branden Institute, a school that offered lecture courses on Objectivism. He later left Rand and attempted to transcend the theories of objectivism, and became a writer.
Ken Wilber is a Buddhist writer/philosopher/psychologist/theologist. I can't say I know a lot about him, if you're interested feel free to Google.
Down to business:
Despite the obvious influence of Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy it has been largely ignored by intellectual and was shunned by both media and many intellectuals on its release. I believe Rand had the misfortune of writing the right things in the wrong time. In the 1950s, many intellectuals had a strong belief that capitalism was failing and it was soon to be replaced by the superior collectivism. If her work had been released upon a culture more like ours: an anti-communist society with less trust of the government, we may have been more accepting. Nevertheless Rand's work strongly influenced many people, including Nathaniel Branden (who was first introduced to the work as a teen).
Early on in the interview, Branden brings up some teenage philosophy he felt guided him through a portion of the beginning of his life. He felt that the entire world was trying to push its view upon him and that it was important to maintain his individualism. In order to do so, he decided he wouldn't accept anything as truth that he couldn't personally verify. I think Objectivism supports this view in a sense - it puts ultimate value in the individual and his or her judgment. I also think Branden is right on in his evaluation of the mindset: "it was extremely helpful, but you waste a lot of time rediscovering the wheel".
Branden sent a letter to Rand when he was almost 20 years old with some questions about the book. It's ironic that Rand's husband, Frank, is the one that recognized the intelligence in young Branden's letter. He suggested that she contact him and help him develop his ideas. I think it's important to note that Branden mentions that upon meeting Rand he felt, for the first time in his life, that he belonged. Stealing from God's Debris (page 112 or so), this was a meeting of two "idea people". Not only that, but their ideas connected in a way that allowed them to build upon their own ideas (just speculation). As an idea person myself I can verify - it's a very rare but a very exciting moment to meet someone like that. In fact, let me clarify even more...since it's my blog, I get to write about myself.
Well first of all, that passage from God's Debris is wrong. It's wrong on many levels, but most importantly it's wrong in stating that idea people only like to talk about their own ideas, they don't like to listen to others. Anyway, I'm really not very good at small conversation. Fortunately I have very good listening skills and since most people are perfectly fine talking about themselves this doesn't cause many problems. But the truth is I get bored easily talking (listening) of things with little significance. I suppose it's normal to get bored talking about things you don't care about - there are just a lot of things I don't care about. You know, it's probably safer to stop this train of thought before it causes problems. I really wanted to say "stop this train of thought before it hits me" but that doesn't make sense - its just a funny image.
So when Rand and Branden met, she asked him three questions. I feel she must have thought these questions very indicative of a "good thinker" - most good thinkers think other good thinkers should think similarly to them. That's a mouthful. She asked #1) What do you think of reason? #2) Is man intrinsically good or bad, and #3) What do you think of life? Is it good or bad?. Each of these questions have their own significance - they are covered in the interview, but I'll review here.
The reason Rand asked question #1 was because of her supreme reverence for reason as the only source of information. The question was basically "Do you believe there is any other way to gather information other than through reason?". It's an interesting question because to answer yes is to completely discredit intuition or any metaphysical guidance. I recently read "Power vs. Force", and I somehow simultaneously enjoyed and hated the book. I hated the book because the main idea the author tried to push was that every idea, action, object...everything had an objective numeric value to our life (between 1 and 1000). By thinking about the object and listening to our body, we could find the value of that object. The basis for the idea is that positive things make your body go strong, weak things make your body go weak. A real-life example (that does work, by the way) takes two people. Have one person hold their arms out straight (Person A), and have the other person try to push one arm down (Person G). You'll need to do this twice - once while the Person A is thinking about how (possibly even saying out loud) they simply can't stop the other person from pushing their arms down. The second time, Person A should be thinking/saying confidently, that they can hold up their arms and stop Person G. For whatever reason, the positive thought affects our bodies ability to resist. Person A may not stop Person G, but person G will certainly notice an increased resistance. Anyway, it's a long jump from their to the author's conclusion. I did find value in the book though because even though I hated the method, I enjoyed some of the results. It was interesting to hear the numeric valuations of various objects and philosophies, even if I had no faith in the method with which they were conceived. I suppose the most interesting valuations was that of the different states of conciousness. Maybe sometime I'll write more about this. I doubt it. Back on topic.
Rand asked question two mostly because she wanted to verify there wasn't any Christian belief that man is born corrupt and there is no chance to redeem ourselves. Man, I hate the idea of original sin as well, but I’ve covered that before.
The third question was interesting and I think it has a little to do with common philosophies at the time. Sadly, I don't know enough about philosophy to name them but I'd bet on existentialism and determinism - maybe my New York philosophy expert (or any other reader) can help me out here. Anyway, the point is that she wanted to make sure that Branden didn't believe it wasn't possible to be happy or to achieve anything in life (Branden's words were "life was impossible because the cards are stacked horribly against you"). Branden's answer was exactly what she was looking for and also what I believe - if we find the right way to live we can be ecstatic. It's interesting that in Atlas Shrugged Rand's characters could never be happy as long as they were part of (dysfunctional) society. The answer she wanted from Branden is at odds with her philosophy as written in her books.
So Branden spent more time with Rand, a small intellectual group was formed, and I'm going to call it quits on this post for now. It's much longer than I thought it would be, and I'm not even 1/3 of the way through my notes about the things I want to discuss. I'll post this as is, but I may remove it or edit it after I get a night's sleep and realize I should cut the parts that aren't interesting (all of it) and leave the parts that are.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
"Despite the obvious influence of Ayn Rand's writing and philosophy it has been largely ignored by intellectual and was shunned by both media and many intellectuals on its release."
I actually had a problem when Branden commented on why objectivism didn't receive as much recognition or renown from philosophers of the time. He said something like... "academic philosophy is currently trivial and arcane" and "has absolutely nothing to do with anything" - which is why I imagine he thought objectivism wasn't accepted, as it's none of those things. But, I mean, don't you think it's kind of understandable that objectivism didn't intially receive much academic acclaim? It's a philosophy that was born out of a novel - the requisites for academic philosophy are a bit more stringent, don't you think?
Anyway, on that paragraph, Rand's work may have been more accepted in our contemporary setting, but probably less influential and effective, yes?
Branden "attempted to transcend the theories of objectivism" - man, I think that's the most PERFECT description of his post-Rand life and I guess the reason I didn't appreciate the interviews as much. It just seemed so odd (and annoying) that Branden had such a complete reversal! First, he's completely "rational" and then following their break, he suddenly puts so much emphasis on feelings and thoughts and spirituality... all of which he seems to use to justify his own... "non-rational" (aka spiritual *rolls eyes*) actions... grr. I mean, really?? "MERGE with that person. BECOME that person. And just notice." Geez.
But the funny thing is, the more I thought about it, the more I kind of understood where he was coming from. I mean, I think I mentioned that since my high school years, I've become slightly skeptical about objectivism, and that's probably why - objectivism puts too much stress on individual agency, determination and choice... and after "experiencing life" a bit more, I, ahem, naturally (hehe) began questioning this fundamental tenet. (I won't go into detail about what prompted this as it's not my blog and I don't want to clutter it up with my own life stories. hahaha) I mean, if NB became an objectivist as a teenager and lived it to the exclusion of all else, I guess it's sort of impressive that he went on to "think differently." After all, teens are pretty impressionable!
Anyway, I'm not saying that I "reject" all of objectivism - I mean, I do think a lot of its tenets are practical and relevant. (I was going to include rational in there, but that's like defining a word with itself, huh? haha)
hehe, I started laughing out loud as I read why you thought NB's answer and Atlas Shrugged's message were at odds. =D
Whoa, you know a philosophy expert in NY? lol, maybe nihilism? postmodernism? (which I actually find pretty fascinating and compelling. heh.. what a surprise)
ps: how'd you like God's Debris? =)
pps: I read the Person A,B,G thing 3 times before I realized B is a typo (??) *was so confused* Why G?? =X
--I'm not going to apologize for long comments anymore-- ;)
hmm, I told myself I was going to stop commenting multiple times, but it seems I can't shut up. =X
Can I insert something into my comment? After "objectivism puts too much stress on individual agency, determination, and choice," insert [which I'm sure Rand would say should (at least) normatively result from being rational or logical]
Ugh, while I'm at it, I might as well comment on the idea/people-oriented dichotomy. I think it's pretty cool that you can definitively say that you're an idea person. I'm not sure whether I am or not. I think maybe I would have said yes more readily about a year ago, but I think I've recently succumbed to the more prevalent type (which probably makes you question whether I was ever really the other).
The thing is, the more time I spent wondering why I didn't relate to very many people or why I didn't understand why they were so interested in such seemingly innane topics... and the more I found myself in positions of having to pretend to be interested or trying to understand, at some point, I think I began to take an interest (to some extent, anyway). Cognitive dissonance at work?
Unfortunately, I don't think I ever thought that the world was in a conspiracy against me, trying to make me think as they did. heh. Maybe if I had, I wouldn't have been so critical of myself.
But having anything you say always result in a dazed silence is slightly unnerving and more than slightly tiring. I mean, insert an -ism into a conversation and you're suddenly viewed as a foreign specimen..
Life is much "easier" when people think you are as frivolous or silly as they are. [Oops, not that they're frivolous or silly, of course. ;)] After all, don't you ever get the feeling that you're just so outnumbered?
Nevertheless, I do still get pretty excited when I meet idea people and I have no idea whether you found any of this remotely interesting, but maybe you can explain how you've "resisted conformity," so to speak. =)
Oh phooey, I just lost some of my comment. Darn my incessant clicking. Anyway, I'm glad you're not apologizing about long messages. I stopped apologizing a while ago as well. I think we both appreciate them.
So, here goes. You have a good memory, that is exactly what Branden said about academic philosophy, but I don't think he was trying to say that was the sole reason it wasn't accepted. They encountered resistance because it was different...in a way, you could compare it to the books (which I'll do a lot of in my reviews). Think Roark in Fountainhead (*sigh* I've read so much of it already. I remembered why I stopped reading...it takes over my life) - no one wanted anything to do with his architectural ideas, he was just some guy and he wasn't building off of previous ideas, he had his own style. The connections don't even end there. If what's said in the interview is true...they didn't ignore objectivism, they hated it. I feel the parallels are too strong to be unintentional, this may be what Branden was implicating.
I think you have a good question. Would Rand be less influential now? I don't know. Of course Atlas Shrugged is still very influential, 50-some years later. To me, it seems if Rand is less influential, then she indirectly brought about or was part of a cultural shift - ie society is wiser now in part because of the book. That's a little bit of a jump, maybe I should go re-read your post on correlation and causation.
It's interesting that you feel like that. I never felt that Branden had a complete reversal, I felt his new philosophy was based upon objectivism. Statements like "I'll never put faith in anything I can't rationally see/prove" say a lot about that to me. I think spiritual is an annoying word for you, because people use it to describe things they do that don't make sense. I don't think Branden went on to start a non-rational philosophy, but I do think that years of ignoring feelings that weren't in line with his world-view was unhealthy and may have forced him to pay attention to those feelings. Maybe upon breaking with objectivism he had to focus on the feelings from under the carpet, as he puts it. I'm interested to hear more about what you think on this subject though - our reactions were so different. Say more! What do you think about Branden?
I'm a little worried about the next section, where you say you understood a bit more of where he was coming from. I'm worried you're telling me what I want to hear. Obviously you're not a strict objectivist (you've mentioned it before) but do you really feel like you understand where NB is coming from?
Haha I'm amused you laughed out loud at that. In fact, I laughed out loud reading that you...yeah. Funny stuff. What comes after post-modernism? Are we ever really going to get a philosophy called "Futurism"? Alright that one's not as funny, sorry.
PS: I have mixed feelings about God's Debris. I'll probably read it, and I'm starting to dislike you for introducing me to all this reading material since I have to read it all =). Anyway, I like some of the ideas but I hate (can you believe I use that word?) some of what I read. I even wrote a note to maybe write a blog about it...doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I accidentally started reading from page 111 so I don't remember where I read this, but in one of the sections the narrator or something talks about how to have a conversation. Heavily paraphrased.
"Just talk about them. Everyone likes to talk about themselves."
"But I don't want to hear about them."
"That's OK. Use the opportunity to turn the conversation so that you can begin talking about things that interest you."
=(. It's hard to explain now what I find so disturbing, so let me give you another example. I had an acquaintance who wanted to be a director in Hollywood. Quirky guy. Anyway, I met with him sometime, and he started talking to me about the importance of appearance. "Here's a great example," he'd say, "look at my briefcase. I went out and bought a briefcase with this special insignia from [some Directors' Association]. I carry it with me, and people see it and they see how I'm dressed and I get more respect. They don't mention the insignia but it's appearance gets me conversations and people assume I'm something that I'm not, but in a good way. That's what's important: you have to find the tricks that give you an advantage - that make people like you." The fact that things like this happen...I'm not sure if they make me angry or depressed. One of the things discussed by Covey in a self-help book I really enjoyed (7 Habits of Highly Effective People, I had my favorite teacher from college go over this book with the class) is the decline of the character ethic into the personality ethic. He references Ben Franklin's autobiography (good book) as a great example of the character ethic: if we work on developing who we are: our honesty, our work-ethic; we will be successful. The examples above seem more focused on character ethic - don't work on promoting internal strength, learn the tricks that make people think you have it. I hate tricks; I hate the manipulation implied, and I hate that they create and promote insecure and ineffective people. Sorry for the severe emotion, and despite all this I have good things to say about Debris too. For some reason I focused on the bad, maybe because I think I like it for the same reasons you do so I have nothing to add. And my god, can you believe how long my reply to your PS is?
PPS: Gah! I can't believe I made that typo. I wanted to use Person A and G to be clever and cute, but instead I now look stupid...and ugly? heh.
On to comment 2.
Multiple, long, whatever =) (comments).
Sorry, but I can definitely say you're an idea person. You might be more of an idea person than me - look at your blog! Well, assuming idea people exist. I think his (Adams) description is a purposeful exaggeration. It's more of a spectrum than a dichotomy. Rereading what I wrote, I don't like it. I think I'm a lot more ordinary than I pretend at in this fanciful world of words (haha I can't believe I'm not going to change the wording on that). I don't know that I dislike "ordinary" conversation.
Anyway, I understand exactly what you mean - about adapting to fit the world or to better participate. In fact, I don't like how I make it sound that one is better than another, or that you would need to "succumb". Aren't there good things about both kinds of life?
Well, I'm sitting here thinking and now I'm out of time. I wish I knew what to say to the frivolous and silly comment, or to your question about being outnumbered.
Anyway, of course I find this interesting. I find you interesting and I'm frustrated that you live in New York because it raises the chances we'll never meet =(. Alas, such is life.
(Not a good memory - actually, I wrote that down because I was so flabbergasted haha) Ok, that confessed, I wish I knew more about the political/cultural atmosphere to which the books was released and how it was accepted from another person’s pov. I can’t help but feel NB is biased, especially given that I thought he, at times, seemed to be a bit defensive about his role (which Wilbur totally catered to! muhaha)
omgoodness… oh. hahaha lol, my play-by-play reaction to the paragraph on how influential you think Rand was in bringing about a whole cultural shift. Ok, I’m going to take a stab in the dark at this. I took a class last year that discussed US paradigm shifts in the 20th c for a portion of the semester, and the two major views we discussed were modernism and postmodernism– the first which characterized mostly pre WWII (and actually, wikipedia goes so far to say that it’s “a trend of thought which affirms the power of human beings to make, improve, and reshape their environment…”, which I’m quoting because it works better for my own argument) and the second which was what we were shifting towards post WWII and which questioned whether anything aside from “experience” is real – assumed to be a reaction to the onset of anomie-like feelings induced by the war.
Now for my caveat: I have no idea how accurate I am about whether Rand necessarily fits into this, but I’m just throwing about ideas, so don’t quote me on this. =P So well, maybe Rand was touting the beliefs of this old modern paradigm while it was trying to be supplanted by this new postmodern one – As in, Rand’s ideas, occurring AFTER WWII, was received so harshly because it went against the grain – not in your sense, but sort of backwards in time. In that case, Rand wasn’t necessarily ushering in anything radically new, she was merely trying to return to an old philosophy… the one she was met with when she first arrived in the US…
(Once again, entirely speculation, but man, I really wish I could see the look on your face right now… assuming of course, I articulated my argument correctly and you’re not going, wtf are you talking about? If you don’t have time to respond to any part of this comment, please please tell me if this made sense to you hahaha)
Ok, well, reversal. I don’t remember when in the interview he made that statement, “I’ll never put faith..” - I tried to go back and find it, but no such luck… Was that before or after the break? But he says himself that he was too much in the cognitive mind frame and so he wanted to try out “experiential psychotherapy.” I don’t really see how you can say his new philosophy was “based upon objectivism.” I mean, I would understand if you said that it was a progression or maybe that he took parts of it he felt were valid and meshed it with others, but the “mind-body/spirit-body connection” that he talks about can never really be objectivist, can it? It’s so abstract and kind of illogical. Hmm, but maybe I’m just getting stuck on semantics. “Based upon” just seems to imply that he’s building a structure on top of a complete, existing foundation…
Lol, you’re probably expecting a grave explanation for why I felt so disgusted after listening through it the first time, but the only one I can come up with at this moment is pretty silly. I think my first reaction was so heated because I got hung up on the fact that Ayn Rand and NB were/are human beings. Humans whose thoughts change, evolve, progress (hopefully)… and that human beliefs are allowed to change and be at odds with one another at different points in one’s life. For that reason, I just immediately pegged NB to be contradictory, and the fact that he seemed to be suggesting that he had outgrown his mentor, seemed pretty conceited and ungrateful to me. So maybe you can say I wanted to defend Ayn Rand against her disciple turned lover turned detractor. (*sheepish grin*)
The funny thing is that I really have no right to defend Rand against NB because my own experiences sort or parallel his. Not so drastically or so deeply, of course, but I guess on the most superficial level. (Btw, I’m sort of disappointed that you would worry that I would just tell you what you want to hear. That’s almost glare-worthy! lol)
I wasn’t going to go into it because it’s sort of long and boring, but you asked for it, so here goes. (Don’t blame me if you fall asleep!)
So, I’m in high school, really trying hard to actually LIVE by the objectivist philosophy, or, at least my understanding of it at the time… revering her characters, idolizing what they stood for.
[oh yea! Tangent: Remember that story NB told about how his mom had asked her “intelligent” friend to come over and discuss The Fountainhead? I found it so funny because I think my mom would have done the same if she had had such a friend. She still blames the fact that I’m not a Christian on all the books I read in high school. Haha],
Well, there’s this perfect Korean proverb that I think explains my thinking at the time, roughly translated as “a frog in a well.” The story behind it is that there’s this frog that lives inside a well and who had never gone outside of it. One day, a frog from the river comes by and peeks in and stops to talk. The well-frog asks the river-frog about the outside world, and the river frog answers that the outside is HUGE. So the well-frog thinks a bit and jumps across ¼ of the width of the well and asks, “This big?” The river frog answers, “No, much bigger!” So the well-frog jumps across ½ of the well and asks, “This big?” The river frog answers, “No, bigger! So finally, the well-frog thinks about it and excitedly jumps across the entire well and goes, “This big?!” And the river frog answers, “No! It’s bigger than that!” The well-frog stares at the river frog for a second before replying, “You nutcase,” and jumps away.
Well, I think I was so constrained by my limited knowledge and experience of the world that I was just willing to accept the first logical belief I came across, without question. (Logical as opposed to the religious. You can read, if interested: http://hiimlydia.blogspot.com/2006/05/8-seventh-day-what-and-guardian-angels.html) I think NB also said something about this, but of course, my flabbergasted mind just dismissed it (*wink).
Well, after I got to college, the summers after my freshman and sophomore years, I interned at these two organizations, “Children’s Advocacy Center of Manhattan” and “Lawyers for Children, Inc.” They both did child advocacy work in NYC for children, usually of lower income or in the foster care system, who were the victims of domestic or sexual abuse – mostly by parents/family. At LFC, my supervisor was the Director of the sexual abuse division and.. well, you have no idea how horrendous some of the case files I had to read were.
Just to give a reference, I commuted to work from home (1.5-2 hours by train, ferry, subway) and halfway into the internship, I was internally freaking out in my head every single day during the commute. I would see potential child sex abuse or domestic violence everywhere. Why is that little girl playing hand games with her father? Did that mom just give her son an evil look? What is that about? Why are they holding hands so tightly? … and just on and on…
Pretty disgusting, right? Well, at that point, being privy to all those cases, being exposed to the repeating family cycles of abuse, the helplessness of those kids to prevent any of it… you have to wonder… Rationalism Agency? Determination? Individual choice? Simply pursue one’s self-interest? …. Wtf?! bullshit. There has to be some case made for emotions and feelings… Those kids didn’t and probably wouldn’t have the opportunity for much more than they had. They were just victims of an inexorable cycle in which eventually, they might just become the perpetrators…
I don’t know, I guess being exposed to all of it just made me realize how inadequate objectivism was and that although it might be great in theory, as a normative philosophy, I’ll take from it what I wish and discard the rest… We grow as we live, right? (hopefully)
Actually, to fit this in with my recent existentialist.. thing, I think what was kind of scary about it is that I had always been able to put my own life into perspective when I thought of the kids I had come across during those two years… but existentialism not only makes my own life a moot point, but their lives and their experiences too. I couldn’t bring any of it into perspective… and I’m not sure that I do completely now, but I’m working on it. =p
I’ve written almost 3 single spaced Word pages and only finished replying to HALF of your comment. *sigh* What’s sadder is that at this point, you know probably more than you’ll EVER want to know about me and probably know more about the stuff I think about than practically all the people I know. hmm, it’s kind of weird that I’m more comfortable telling a stranger, huh?… =p
I also get the sinking feeling that you’re turning me into one of those people who “are perfectly fine talking about themselves”… Bleh. It seems the tables have turned. Read my profile – that’s MY expertise!… lol, the best way to avoid active “social interaction”: get them to talk about their life… =X
I’m going to stop writing. I feel sort of foolish. But let me really quickly explain about the "inane" and frivolous and silly bit (not to be confused with "ordinary," lol). I can’t believe how condescending I sounded, but I was talking solely in terms of materialism and when I wrote that, I was wrotomg with this past summer’s experiences at the Dept of Labor in mind (which I should have explained, as you are not a mind reader. =P). I meant to frame frivolous and silly in terms of materialistic people and people who are completely and utterly obsessed with relationships.
Honestly, in terms of materialism though, I don’t care if I’m condescending and I don’t care if the word “succumb” has a negative connotation, because working in a political atmosphere, I really couldn’t help but succumb to caring about appearances and whether my heels were right or my outfit was in style, because your ability to “fit in” and “work together,” two things DC just loooved to emphasize, hinged on whether one looked competent or capable. Ironic, right? It was such a paradox: you can stand out only in as much as you can fit in. (lol, might not make much sense.)
Holy, must stop stop. I’ve spent like an hour on this! lol I’ll continue if you're still interested after this disproportionately long, monster of a post. I promise I won’t get offended if you’re not. ;)
[haha, it is pretty far, huh? I don't even know how to pronounce oregon!]
hrmm, I just realized that my materialism bit kinda reflects your director acquaintance story. Maybe I internalized it when I read it and... hmm... lol, *trying to think if I could have been thinking of something else*... =P
*shrug??
*looks at time and sighs* I need to ban your site! haha, I'm sure it'll get boring and we'll eventually return to a normal blogger/blog reader relationship, right? haha ;)
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean - it's difficult to just accept what these two are saying as truth. Jumping ahead a bit, I read good ol' Wikipedia on Modernism and post-modernism (so I could understand your later point). It, to a degree, verifies what was said in the interview.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism#Modernism.27s_second_generation_.281930-1945.29)
Another strong influence [from 1930-1945] was Marxism. After the generally primitivistic/irrationalist aspect of pre-World War One Modernism, which for many modernists precluded any attachment to merely political solutions, and the neoclassicism of the 1920s, as represented most famously by T. S. Eliot and Igor Stravinsky—which rejected popular solutions to modern problems—the rise of Fascism, the Great Depression, and the march to war helped to radicalise a generation. The Russian Revolution was the catalyst to fuse political radicalism and utopianism, with more expressly political stances.
That's just a blurb, but it does mention that, at the very least, Marxism was gaining popularity at the time.
So, are you always so timid in expressing your ideas, or am I just intimidating =)? It's even a smart idea. It makes very good sense to me, but I would add a stipulation. I don't think Rand was encouraging a return to modernism, though many of the ideals of her philosophy were the same. Objectivism and modernism aren't the same thing. I find it more likely that the post-modernists only interpreted her writing as encouraging modernism. They saw her encouraging a return to the horse-drawn carriage after the onset of the automobile, so it would make perfect sense to dismiss her ideas. I'm probably just clarifying your original intent - you don't think Rand was a modernist, but she was seen as one.
(I have bad news for you. The initial look on my was one of a complete lack of understanding - the same kind of expression I'd have listening to a discussion of the chaos theory in a foreign language. So, I reread it, and I understood. Then I went and read about modernism and postmodernism and read it again, and I agreed :). Also, just ask if there's something important you want me to reply to and I will. I promise :). I felt bad, sensing your eagerness for my response but your fear that you wouldn't get one. As far as seeing the look on my face - I think my face is actually hard to read. People often misinterpret and assume I'm in some weird mood by my face. I don't know why, it's not a concious attempt at confusion.)
I'm sorry, I can't remember where he says that ("never put faith"). I went looking for it, but also had no luck finding it. I decided I'd rather write than search, but I may have overly paraphrased. He was talking about how he felt objectivism was valuable, and that it added to his life the idea that he would not accept things that he could not rationally prove. Then he went on to explain that he increased his concept of what rational was, and that he accepted that some things could not be rationally explained but rationally observed. I think these were all in the same section. You're not getting stuck on semantics. When I say based upon, I literally mean that many ideas from objectivism also exist in his new philosophy. The way he sees it, he took what was valuable from objectivism and used that to create his ideas. So I think we disagree on this. His beliefs are based upon Objectivism in that he started with Objectivism as a framework and built from there, tearing down some objectivism and adding in some Branden here and there.
To answer your question...I can't see mind-body/spirit-body connections ever entering into objectivist frameworks because objectivism sees a human as a single entity led by the mind. Mind-body/spirit-body implies a separation (well, spirit-body does) and in my opinion the existence of a spirit in this sense undermines the idea that our mind's logic is our sole guidepost to what is right. I wonder if I'm even making sense :/.
I can understand completely what you mean when you say you became upset because of the human aspect of NB and Rand. I have a blog entry (which you've read!) where I talk about how I had a similar issue.
http://www.xanga.com/aaero/406926759/item.html?nextdate=last&direction=n. I will admit I'm surprised at how your opinion changed so much. You must be good at giving things a second chance, if I disliked something as much as your initial impression implied odds are low that I'd change my mind...but they do say girls mature faster than boys (haha).
Lol sorry for accusing you of pandering to me. I'm glad I avoided the glare, even if it was a narrow avoidance. Your story wasn't boring, but it was long. Share anything you want to.
Lydia, oh Lydia that frog in a well! haha your SDA post had me laughing a couple times (esp. the image of the angels sitting outside the theater door smoking, but I was already laughing because they told you your angels couldn't go inside the theater). You do sound like you were perfectly set up, in your impressionable teenage years, to fall victim to the evils of logic (pardon my sarcasm).
That period of your life (working with the Advocacy Center and with LFC) sounds really difficult :/. In fact, I'm fairly certain I couldn't handle the work. I can relate, in a sense, what you mean in describing your (very long) commute and the experiences you had on it, how you were affected by your work so negatively. It would be scary to see what you saw when you looked at people (but I know I would see the same thing). I know this isn't the focus of your story, but it seems wrong to not give attention to something that undoubtedly had a huge effect on your life and on you. I appreciate your talking about it.
Is it disgusting? It's disgusting that there are so many cases of abuse that dealing with all of them changed you.
I hope we grow as we live.
I've always felt a philosophy of existentialism was the equivalent to "giving up". Life is so horrible that the only thing that makes sense is that nothing matters. What is your perspective now? You recently wrote about Life & Death and depressed all your readers...but is what you wrote how you feel now? A better question might even be to ask if it was really how you felt then.
How could I ever know more about you than I'd ever want to know? Is there some limit I'm not aware of when it comes to how much I should want to know about a person? I guess there are certain facts I'd rather not know about some people. Also, I'm not a stranger anymore. I've moved up one slot on the list...I'm not sure what the next slot is called, but you know my name and if we passed each other on the street we'd say hi (if we knew it was the other person, which we wouldn't).
Don't be silly. I think our exchange of "talking about ourselves" is somewhere near equal (you threw off the balance slightly with this post, but we'll reach an equilibrium I'm sure). Is it active social interaction when both parties talk about their own life (if only one does it, it's not active)? Also, tell the truth: you do enjoy telling me your ideas and experiences, just as I enjoy telling you mine, no? I think, for people like you and I, it's enjoyable to talk to other people if they listen and care. It's no use telling someone Rand's theories were rejected because of the onset of post-modernism if that someone doesn't care.
I think you're a little bit worried that I won't care. I am certainly a little worried about that with you. It's no fun to open up and be met with indifference.
Hmm, I wonder if what I've written makes any sense. Do you ever write something and have no idea if it has any value whatsoever? I feel like I might look at the above paragraphs tomorrow or in a week and want to slap myself for my stupidity...but there's also a possibility I'll reread it and think I had a good point.
Heh I would seriously dislike that job in DC. You were right on - your materialism bit is similar to my director acquaintance story. Would I succumb as you did? (not litterally, I'm not wearing any damn heels) I guess I'd have to like my job, or want my job. In fact, 50 years ago when I was your age I might have just accepted it as a necessary evil. Now that I'm older and wiser I'd probably try to ditch the job and find something I could stand.
Well, now it's 10:00 in Ore-reh-gen (slight emphasis is placed on the first syllable). I wanted to write Part 2 to this post this morning (it's even better than part 1!) but that is not to be. Perhaps I'll have time in the evening.
I also need to ban my site, and your site. But you're probably right - eventually one of us will get bored/distracted/busy. Sad to think about :(. It's OK, I'll ride the enthusiasm out as long as I can.
PS: My proofread tells me this message was almost all reply with limited new content. Oops!
Post a Comment