Part 2

So, part 2. I'll be making a lot of ties between the discussion and Rand's works/philosophy...try to keep up.

I ended my last post mentioning the group of intellectuals that began gathering. This group discussed Atlas Shrugged as it was written. I have to admit I have some jealousy here...I have not once been in a group of great thinkers in discussion of what would become the second most influential novel of all time. Not once.

I'm going to jump ahead right into one of Branden's criticisms of objectivism.
"If you are thinking rationally, your feelings will follow. If your feelings and logic are out of sync, your logic is bad." He also says that feelings that don't match are simply "swept under the rug" - basically, they are ignored. Is it human condition to have feelings that don't make sense logically?

I don't want to discuss the chemical aspect (ie eating chocolate makes me happy when logically I'd be sad). I think, specifically, Branden was referring to his doubts and the fact that he didn't love Rand. What about the initial feelings of like, dislike, or the connection we feel with some people that we don't feel with others? I'm still thinking about it, but I think that all of our feelings do have a logical base. It's easy to argue that Branden simply had perceptions he was not aware of - basically, he gathered information that his brain had processed but it hadn't fully developed in his conscious mind. Maybe he repressed the information, as it was a truth he didn't want to face. I think that our initial feelings can also be described in such a way - we make a judgment, consciously or unconsciously, about a person based on the information we have - their appearance, their body language, etc. I don't feel my ideas here are well developed, I'm kind of writing as I think.

One thing that I found interesting (and I'm surprised my sole reader Lydia didn't brandish the topic angrily) is how Wilber tried to spread the credit of Atlas Shrugged upon the whole intellectual discussion group. This is at odds, of course, with her books if she considers herself a "prime mover". Roark, Rearden...her creators are the ones responsible for the end product, not those that help them create. I cannot verify it, but I've always felt Rand, at some level, based her leads upon herself. Of course we say that Branden is the basis for Rearden, but what I mean is that Rand also had an amazing passion for her work and for creation. I think she would hate to have the credit for her work and ideas go out to this group.

The book was released to a culture that didn't accept it. I've got two theories on this - one that's not mine and is smart, and another that is mine. First, though, I'd like to mention another book similarity. Rand was depressed that Shrugged was so horribly received. According to the interview, critics gave it horrendous reviews and the intellectual crowd rejected it as well. Rand reminded me, at this point, of her architect Henry Cameron from "The Fountainhead". Cameron was a "true" artist - he loved his work and his work was quality. Cameron was already disenchanted with society by the time we are introduced to him; he is jaded beyond retribution. If Rand was depressed she must have felt like Cameron - she must have felt there was nothing that could be done to make society appreciate true art.

Rand's leads have an uncanny amount of personal strength, perhaps an impossible amount. Maybe it's unreasonable to expect her to take that role: she sees them as ideals that even she cannot live up to. I suppose Rand didn't give up, she was merely disheartened...understandably. She had put so much effort into her novel only to have it dismissed as worthless - it's hard not to compare her to a lead.

So why didn't culture accept it? First, let me cite the work of a relatively unknown expert in objectivism. She asked me not to quote so I'll have to paraphrase:

The basis of Rand's objectivism was very similar to the basis of the philosophy of modernism - "a trend of thought which affirms the power of human beings to make, improve, and reshape their environment..." Rand's ideas took place after a cultural shift had taken place and the intellectual community was focused on postmodernism. Postmodernism counters many of the founding principles of modernism by questioning if they truly exist. The similarity to modernism may have caused people to think that she was encouraging a return to an old philosophy - a philosophy believed to have been improved upon - and therefore dismissed her ideas.

While I agree with the above, I have another perspective to add. Rand was a bit of a victim of her own vision (yet again). One of the guiding principles of art, in her mind, was its originality. For example, her architect did not believe in simply using old styles of architecture, nor did he believe in taking the best of the most recent style and attempting to improve upon it. He had his own style - a wonderful, original style without any historical origins. I believe she attempted to craft her philosophy as such - she didn't want to build off an existing philosophy, she wanted to start anew ignoring what she felt were obsolete methods of thinking. Perhaps it was it's originality, and not it's similarity to modernism, that led to its dismissal.

For a good part of the majority of the interview, Branden discusses the bias of objectivism towards feelings, especially feelings that don't fit the logical framework. I don't have much to comment on this part, other than there is a statement worth thinking about: "All of the major mistakes I've made in life have been when I've neglected something I was feeling." I need to make some more major mistakes in my life before I can discuss this without feeling awkward. Branden feels there's a relationship between reason and emotion - that emotions should be used as guideposts.

I think what Branden means by this is that our emotions can be a source of information. They can be a way to tap into something we might not consciously realize. I don't know how valuable they are. A simple the example is that first impression emotion I made earlier. There have been people that I just didn't like after looking at them, or possibly talking to them once...but I didn't have any logical reason I could think of for this dislike. Obviously, that first impression was wrong and my emotions were, well, worthless. This doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to my emotions, it means I don't know how to tell which ones are valuable and which aren't.

So, time for an Aaron observation. "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" is Branden's most popular book. I think authors can relate best to others when they first start a philosophical or psychological journey. Most of us start with premises that are at least fairly similar - at the very least you will have an audience that starts with the same premises. I don't believe that everyone progress past the first steps, though, and I also believe that we don't all move in the same direction. Branden's later books are written after he's further along his spiritual path as he is an individual who is serious about personal growth and therefore not the type to stagnate in the beginning steps. It's much more difficult to find an audience for books written in this state - they almost have to have enjoyed his previous books and started a path similar to his to get value from the books.

It's interesting that Branden felt (rightly so, I believe) that many of his objectivist friends ended their friendship after the Rand breakup not because of Rand, but because they were worried Branden was continuing down an intellectual path and they didn't want to change their personal philosophy. It's common, I believe, to become content or to lose interest in developing our world-view. In my experience, most people actively stop developing their world-view when they leave school. I think a sure sign is when instead of looking for new ideas you look for material that supports your existing ideas. Basically, it implies that you think you're right...or at least right enough. I think I'm still in development...or possibly that I stopped when I was 7 or 8. I have always been very stubborn.

The last thought that had importance to me in the first interview was "Nobody was ever led to virtue by being told he was wrong." I disagree - sometimes you have to tell someone if they're wrong. I like it when people tell me I'm wrong - if it's something important, I'll react petulantly and probably ridicule them as a self-defense mechanism, but I'm likely to think about it later. So I like this idea, but the use of the word "ever" is poor. In the act of virtue-guiding, you have to choose your leash wisely.

My metaphors are horrible.