Your thoughts on this article on Ayn Rand?

[Free Capitalist]

I will amend by saying that, in my evaluation, it wasn't worth the effort of getting angry. Am I still incorrect in that?

This is what RationalCop was talking about. It isn't worth the effort for you, because your hierarchy of values may be such that you are not threatened, and don't see the big deal. Someone else may have a different priority of values, and may consequently feel angrier at the same things you will be indifferent about.

I get angry when there's no use

Don't you see? You're doing that repression thing again. It's not up to your conscious will to decide what is worth getting angry about, and what isn't. What decides these things is your subconscious. When you blame yourself for getting angry when you don't see any reason, you are putting the cart before the horse again and again repressing automatic reactions because you don't like them, or can't deal with them. The very formulation of what I quoted above is really dangerous and you should try to avoid it.

Anyway, to avoid deviating from the thread's topic, let's pursue this in the Repressed Objectivists thread and I will reply there (if you do this, please quote the salient aspects of my posts to set the context, as well as a link back to my posts in this thread, for back-reference).

[source]

Now that is utterly fascinating.  You are correct, I was mistaken to imply that it is somehow "wrong" to get angry.  I will amend by saying that, in my evaluation, it wasn't worth the effort of getting angry.  Am I still incorrect in that?  Is the effort not in getting angry, but in supressing the anger?

I find myself supressing anger constantly (and by an effort of will) because I don't like the results of my irrational actions when I let myself be guided by anger.  The only way I have discovered to avoid acting irrationally is to avoid getting angry.

Is it that I hold a set of incorrect value-judgements and assessments that I get angry when there's no use?  Or is it just that I just need help in avoiding the expression of said anger?

Megan,

Emotions are responses to certain ideas or people (the values they portray or defile), which is controllable only to the extent to which you can consciously change your own ideas, premises, values, etc. There is no effort necessary to get angry. It is wrong to suppress anger.

However, by analyzing your ideas and your values which led you to feel anger in a certain situation and you find those ideas or values as incorrect, you just have to wait until the emotion is over and then evaluate the situation reasonably. You may have to change your ideas, you may have to change your values if you conclude that they are wrong - with that, you will have changed your future emotional response to the same situation.

Emotions come automatically - without effort - but they are based on what ideas and values you hold in high regard subconsciously - and the intensity of your emotion is based on exactly how high that regard is.

If you continue to suppress your emotions you'll end up a nervous wreck (the Vulcan "peace of mind" notwithstanding). Leonard Peikoff covers the issue of emotions well in OPAR.

[BurgessLau]

I have contacted the owner of the site and the author of the text and suggested to him that he put his disclaimer on the page, explaining to him also that his "joke" doesn't come across as one and that someone might take the (mis)information seriously.

Source, thank you. Will you let us know what the author says, if anything? That will be an element in identifying -- and evaluating -- the author's intentions, irrespective of the results of his intentions.

[JMeganSnow]

If you continue to suppress your emotions you'll end up a nervous wreck

I thought I already was a nervous wreck.

[JMeganSnow]

I thought I already was a nervous wreck.

I have to apologize for this, it's BLATANT sympathy-fishing. I realized that after I came back.

[RationalBiker]

This is true, however I respond with this:  "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me." 

The only place where the reputation of Ayn Rand or Objectivism holds any importance is in the minds of rational people.  There, her ideas speak for themselves.  I do not fear the words of irrationalists, merely the force of their arms.  Damage is not done by irrational "concepts", but by people acting on them.

I have seen people lose their jobs based on the "foolish" words of others. I have seen people denied promotions based on the "foolish" words of others. I'm glad that you are fearless in this respect, but my experience has been that mere words can have devastating and lasting effects on people's lives. And it would be nice if every time someone was the subject of slander or libel, that they could recompense damages afterwards. Sadly, that is not always the case.

I am having a difficult time understanding why you attempt to draw the distinction between the harm caused by the actual words ( as though someone was representing them as physical weapons ) and damage that can clearly be done by the resulting actions taken from someone's words. I find little comfort with the after thought of being damaged by the resulting actions, but then being able to say "at least the words themselves didn't hurt me."

[Patrick N.]

Damage is not done by irrational "concepts", but by people acting on them.

I don't understand why you put the word "concepts" in quotes. Do you not consider the concept of "concept" to be valid?

Also, if the ideas (concepts) people hold are not what they base their actions on, then what do they base their actions on?

For people to cause damage by acting on irrational concepts, don't they first have to hold those concepts?

[Edited by me to add last question]

[Charles]

The article is definitely Satire and I dont think it is at all malicious.

I think the questions here are:

1) Is it good satire?

2) Does satire have a place within Objectivism - 'its philosophical values, its romantic-realism esthetic, and its image of man as heroic'? ( to quote Mr Lau from another thread on this topic) If not, what does constitute Objectivist humor?

3) If yes, then what is good satire?

---

Personally I have been amused by a great deal of satire - is anybody familiar with Douglas Adams and his 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' trilogy? The opening chapter begins with typical dry Brit, Arthur Dent, awaking one Thursday morning to be faced by a demolition crew commisioned by the local council to destroy his house to build a bypass....and ends with an alien fleet of Vogons destroying Earth in order to build an intergalactic highway...shrugging off the world leaders complaints with the incidental "you've had the last 2000 yrs to check your local planning office" ( @ Alpha Centauri!)

(edited for grammar)

[Durandal]

I think satire does indeed have a place within Objectivism -- or, more appropriately, its appreciation would not be counterintuitive to Objectivist philosophy.

Satire is acceptable humor because it mocks evil or undesirable practices and ideas. Good satire does, anyway. Satire that mocks the good is typically just bad satire

I've found South Park, The Simpsons, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Catch-22 to all be examples of good satire. At least, I should say that they all contain more good humor than bad humor.

Just as a side note, has anyone here read Catch-22, by Joseph Heller? I found it to be the most hilarious, scathing satire on beauracracy I've ever read, whilst simultaneously expressing a uniquely selfish anti-war sentiment.

[Edited to add italicization]

[Bryan]

I think satire does indeed have a place within Objectivism -- or, more appropriately, its appreciation would not be counterintuitive to Objectivist philosophy.

Satire is acceptable humor because it mocks evil or undesirable practices and ideas.  Good satire does, anyway.  Satire that mocks the good is typically just bad satire 

Let's not forget that satire does not have to be humorous. According to Wikipedia, a satire is " literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject (individuals, organizations, states) often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change". One form of satire is a dystropia, "a fictional society, usually portrayed as existing in a future time, when the conditions of life are extremely bad due to deprivation, oppression, or terror".

Portions of Atlas Shrugged fall under this definition. The way Ayn Rand portrays the world as a result of the elimination of the prime movers (deprivation) and excessive government regulation (oppression) is a perfect example of a dystropia.

Personally I have been amused by a great deal of satire - is anybody familiar with Douglas Adams and his 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' trilogy?

I love those books . Did you see that there is a HGTG movie coming out on May 6th? I saw a teaser trailor for it the last time I was at the movies. Movie site

[JMeganSnow]

I don't understand why you put the word "concepts" in quotes. Do you not consider the concept of "concept" to be valid?

[Edited by me to add last question]

No, because irrational concepts are invalid.

[JMeganSnow]

I have seen people lose their jobs based on the "foolish" words of others. I have seen people denied promotions based on the "foolish" words of others.

I've seen people GET jobs and promotions because of these words, too; what of it? It's their job; if they want to fire you for any reason or no reason that's their decision. They get to live with the consequences. I'll even quote Ayn Rand for you: "There is no such thing as an 'only' chance or a 'single' opportunity."

Frankly I find your entire attitude to be extremly deterministic, as though words create actions automatically. They do not. Are people incapable of determining truth from falsehood? Would you want to associate with someone that was? I wouldn't. Frankly if someone is so eager to believe lies about me I'd be well pleased indeed to discover it before it cost me more than a job or a promotion.

[bASIC QUESTIONS FORUM Moderator note: This post fails to identify the source of the quoted passage. Quotations from earlier posts should retain the snapback feature as well as the full header identifying the time of the original post. Both features allow the reader to trace the quoted excerpt back to the original text, to examine the content. -- Burgess Laughlin]

Edited January 29, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Patrick N.]

No, because irrational concepts are invalid.

I agree that they are invalid, but aren't they still properly classified as concepts?

[JMeganSnow]

I agree that they are invalid, but aren't they still properly classified as concepts?

I don't think so. But I used the wrong word anyway; I should have said irrational statements or something along those lines. Carry on, don't mind me.

[Charles]

Yes - I cannot wait for the Hitchhikers movie - trailer was promising.

[Free Capitalist]

Objection! Your honor, the defendant never said those words!

[ChristopherSchlegel]

I've found...The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Catch-22 to all be examples of good satire.

I love Douglas Adams' books. He can be quite funny. He was at his best when satirizing religious & irrational philosophical concepts.

There is a scene in the first book of HHGG in which a couple of philosophers say things like: "We demand a total absence of solid facts!" & "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt & uncertainty!"

Oh, man, that's good stuff.

Also, Terry Pratchett is sometimes good at social & philosophical satire in a quasi-fantasy setting. It's been years since I've read Catch-22 but I remember thinking it was funny at the time.

However, it is sometimes disappointing these authors are very good at pointing out flawed premises through ridicule/satire, while, rarely, if ever, suggesting anything (i.e. a rationally justified concept) to correct the premise.

[JMeganSnow]

Objection! Your honor, the defendant never said those words!

I heard back about this mistake: I'll be more careful. Apologies.