Dennis Hardin

The film version of Les Miserables, the musical, opens on Christmas day. Based on the previews, it almost seems as if the makers of the film appreciated the leitmotif of grandeur Ayn Rand spoke about in 1962. Is it possible that the Hollywood of today managed to bridge that gap of esthetic light years she described? I’m optimistic. I never saw the Broadway stage version, but the silver screen is a radically different medium. Wouldn’t it be amazing to live in Victor Hugo’s universe for 2 ½ hours? It will be interesting to see.

I'm simply arguing that the religious overtones of the Republican ticket may have played a role in their defeat, and I'm happy if that's the case. I'll leave it there.

In two of the three issues cited—abortion, gay rights and immigration—the Republican position is based on religion, and the Democratic position represents a secularist viewpoint. In a sense, Obama’s re-election represents a victory for secularism. On a philosophical level, religion is more fundamental than Obama’s abhorrent anti-capitalist views, and a much greater threat to liberty in the long-term. From that perspective, we can take something positive from Obama’s win.

“But they are associating with the sanctioners of the sanctioners of evil, and therefore if I have anything to do with them, including asking them questions, I would be guilty, according to their own publicly stated position, of sanctioning those who are sanctioning the sanctioners of the sanctioners of evil.” Having elevated this sort of quasi-religious moral pedantry to a fundamental tenet of Objectivism, Peikoff now predicts that religion will prevail over Objectivism as the wave of the future. Maybe that isn’t so shocking after all.

Did you bother to read my comment? You asked what I am arguing for, and I stated very clearly what I am arguing for: Fighting for the future instead of passively resigning oneself to the dialectical progression of the Hegelian “zeitgeist,” as if there’s little or nothing we can do to prevent it from happening.

My use of the word malevolent had strictly to do with Peikoff’s dark and overwhelming pessimism, not any intentional destructiveness on his part. He may be a prophet of doom, but I don’t consider him to be on the side of the destoyers.

Peikoff: “ [T]he takeover of America by [religious fanatics] is not certain. In my judgment, it is only probable. But it is so highly probable as to border on certainty…Given America’s present condition and the historical factors, it is almost impossible to overestimate the likelihood of its occurrence.” [DIM Hypothesis, p. 341] For Peikoff to have used the word “certain,” he would have to endorse historical determinism—and that would be directly contradictory to Objectivism. He comes as close to that as is possible for someone who endorses free will. How long is the book? 347 pages. How many pages does Peikoff devote to the importance of resisting the historical forces he describes? 6. Someone operating from the benevolent universe premise would have devoted at least half of the book to an explanation of what can be done to stop the “inevitable” from happening. And the book would have been subtitled: “Why the Lights of the West are Going Out—And What You Can Do To Stop it.” He obviously regards that last part as comparable to pissing into the wind. I wonder what Ayn Rand would have said about her most prominent spokesman throwing in the towel so easily.

Peikoff’s new book highlights what is, for me, a profound and glaring difference between him and Ayn Rand: fundamental benevolence (AR) vs. fundamental malevolence (LP) in their perspectives on the universe. In her PLAYBOY interview, Ayn Rand stated that, throughout history, whenever men were free, the most rational philosophy has always won out. As far as I know, she never changed her view that, whatever setbacks we might encounter along the way, Objectivism would eventually triumph. The purpose of Atlas Shrugged was “to prevent itself from becoming prophetic.” Peikoff predicts religious totalitarianism in America within 50 years. Peikoff wonders what Ayn Rand would have thought of his theory. On that basis alone—his dire, miserably depressing prediction for the future of the world--I think I know.

To my knowledge, none of the early letters Branden sent to Rand have ever been published.

SA, Since you mentioned it, I would be curious about any feedback you (or anyone) might have about the OL anarchy debate. I'm referring to the the philosophical points, of course, not the unfortunate personal tone. (I did my best to minimize that, but sometimes self-defense makes it unavoidable.) Thanks

Those who are interested in the topic of ‘The Choice to Live’ may find the following new essay of interest: The Choice to Live Reconsidered It is an integration of some material from the recent book published through the Ayn Rand Society of The American Philosophical Association: Meta-ethics, Egoism, and Virtue, with my own 1992 essay on this topic, The Choice to Live.

A psychologist is simply a psychotherapist with a Ph.D. The mere fact that a therapist has a Ph.D. means nothing about their level of competence or counseling skills. It simply means the person has more formal education than a master’s level therapist. Many master’s level counselors are extremely effective therapists, because they spent more time doing therapy than writing a thesis. Because you are dealing with depression, you would be well advised to look for a therapist (regardless of their specific license) who specializes in cognitive-behavioral therapy. CBT has been shown to be particularly effective with depression. You can simply ask the prospective therapist if they are experienced with CBT (or REBT—rational emotive behavioral therapy, Albert Ellis’s version of CBT—which is very similar). Incidentally, there are a lot of similarities between cognitive behavioral techniques and Objectivist epistemology/psychology. For instance, the CBT toolkit includes the so-called “downward arrow” technique. It is designed to help clients discover the deeper thoughts which underlie their conscious thinking. In other words, to “check your premises.” Asking a therapist if he/she knows what the "downward arrow" technique is, might be a good way to test their expertise with CBT.

My reason for addressing the potential impact of Atlas Shrugged Part One on the culture--i.e., its' value in spreading Rand's ideas and thereby advancing human progress--was to underscore the film's relevance to the theme of The Fountainhead and a "second hand" approach to living one's life. Someone else alluded to that issue (inappropriately) in a prior post. I agree that a work of art should be judged primarily on its own esthetic merits and not from the perspective of its cultural impact.

A sample of Parrish's "trash": I'm not a big fan of Parrish, but I think we can take Rand's response as an example of her occasional tendency toward hyperbole. The painting does represent a kind of false, ethereal romanticism, but would you really classify this as no better than, say, a paint splash by Jackson Pollock? If Parrish is "trash," Bouguereau is excrement. Since Cline obviously regards himself as some sort of supreme guardian of Ayn Rand's philosophical domain, one would think he might know more about her standards of what constitutes great art.

I first encountered the ideas of Ayn Rand in her PLAYBOY interview in 1964. I was a clueless sophomore in high school in East Tennessee, struggling to maintain my sanity while growing up in the Bible Belt. I was immediately hooked. From that time on, you would rarely have seen me without a copy of Atlas Shrugged. I told people it was "My Bible." That summer, I visited New York and saw Ayn Rand in person answering questions at the Nathaniel Branden Institute. (A friend had purchased tickets to see the sold-out Broadway play "Hello Dolly" months in advance. I went to NBI instead. I don't think he ever forgave me.) All those years ago, I remember thinking that Ayn Rand would save the world. In retrospect, though, considering how confused I was at the time, all that really matters to me is that she saved my life.

The theme of The Fountainhead is that the individual creative mind is the source and ‘fountainhead’ of all human progress and advancement. And that sheep-like second handers who live by and through the judgments and thinking of others amount to little more than road kill in the ultimate scheme of things. In the world of art, a second-hander would be someone who takes credit for achievements that are not his own. Aglialorro and Kaslow did not do this. They acknowledge that they did the best they could with limited resources. Is every film-maker who does his best to transform a novel into a good movie on a limited budget a second-hander? Obviously not. It is not the case here, but many films turn out to be significantly better than the novels on which they’re based. Whatever their shortcomings, a number of very brilliant creative thinkers were involved in the creation of Atlas Shrugged Part One. And by helping to spread the philosophy of Ayn Rand, they are clearly succeeding in advancing human life. Which is quite a bit more than I can say for the film’s ‘Objectivist’ detractors. Incredibly, it appears that some people are actually condemning the film without seeing it. In other words, they are literally reaching their "independent" opinion by looking at it through someone else's eyes. That is the essence of living life as a second-hander.

I thoroughly agree with this sentiment. One thing to keep in mind is that people are often attracted to radical political and philosophical causes for reasons other than rational, independent thought. Many people may join a movement they regard as countercultural because they feel inadequate to conventional cultural standards. They would reject any contemporary cultural standards because they feel unable to meet any such standards. They oppose standards, as such--even while pretending to simply oppose existing standards. Such people have a vested interest in maintaining an angry, defiant, oppositional stance. They would be uncomfortable with anything that came along to make their fundamentally negative universe suddenly appear more benevolent. I have seen the movie six times and love the feeling of living in the universe of Atlas Shrugged. A defiant, oppositional personality would likely have the opposite reaction. He would likely feel threatened by an artistic depiction of his alleged ideal--because his only ideal is actually metaphysical hatred as such.

Dr. Packer clearly states (p. 4) that the focus of her paper is Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. I noticed that this PDF provides only a partial transcript of her lecture. The full lecture is available for purchase from The Jefferson School website (which I guess is the context you refer to). However, anyone interested can just as well read about it on wikipedia: Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

Recall the scene in the novel when Dagny gives the stub of Akston’s dollar-sign cigarette to her friend at the cigar counter of the concourse. Maybe Aglialoro had a novel interpretation of what Rand meant when Dagny was so happy with that cigarette.

Some of the psychological issues discussed on this thread appear to fit the criteria of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, a psychological syndrome common among people who are inclined to be highly intellectual in their approach to life. Psychologist Edith Packer lectured on this topic at an Objectivist conference many years ago. You can read her pamphlet on the topic here: The Obsessive-Compulsive Syndrome by Edith Packer Here is a brief description:

It wasn't Rearden's clothing that I found troublesome; it was his lack of imposing height and the fact that he resembled a male model. Rearden should be played by an actor with character in his face. Bowler is far too "pretty." And I couldn't get past the hair. In the scene where Dagny encounters Rearden on the steel bridge--a scene which is very important for highlighting their mutual romantic attraction--Schilling's Dagny displayed the passion in her eyes, but I had to imagine she was looking at someone other than Bowler. Well, at least we agree on Akston. Cline is exactly right when he says that Akston comes across as "a diffident, middle-aged, rude slob in what looks like a white jump suit." What the hell was the director thinking?

Cortlandt Homes, Redux: Why John Agilardo's Adaptation of Ayn Rand's Novel Atlas Shrugged Utterly Fails by Edward Cline Virtues are more important than flaws, and there is so much about this movie to praise—most especially its' strong philosophical tone and the terrific performance of Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart—that I regard Cline’s review as more curmudgeonly than insightful. I recently saw the film for the sixth time, and every time it has given me the sense of entering the wonderful universe of Atlas Shrugged. If one crucial purpose of art is to give one spiritual fuel, this film does that (if one is open to it). And if the film inspires newcomers to read the book, Cline’s review has to be considered more destructive than constructive. Here is another strongly negative review from The American Thinker: Who Botched John Galt? I thoroughly agree with Lawrence Siskind’s assessment of Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden: The casting of Rearden was, to me, was one of the most disappointing aspects of the film, and I am pleased to see a critic endorse my sentiments. There is nothing wrong with pointing out defective aspects of the film. On the other hand, to do so without highlighting the many wonderful aspects of the movie strikes me as profoundly irrational. Are some Objectivists trying to discourage people from seeing the film? I find that hard to believe. It is so easy to wrap yourself in a protective shroud of vitriolic negativity because things are less than perfect—and Atlas Shrugged Part One is far from perfect. It is much more challenging and courageous to speak out in defense of that which is good and admirable in this world. Our society desperately needs positive values to emulate, not the destructiveness of reckless condemnation.

Speaking of Libertarian Futility: Fukuyama on Hayek in The Sunday Times’ Book Review If anyone is inclined to applaud The New York Times Sunday Book Review for publishing Francis Fukuyama’s review of a new edition of Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty,(Friedrich A. Hayek, Big-Government Skeptic) you might want to reconsider. Ever wonder why Ayn Rand referred to Hayek as "an example of our most pernicious enemy?” Here is a clue from Fukuyama: Sounds a lot like that prolific 'libertarian' author I was talking about. And where does Hayek’s “moral relativism” lead? Check out these excerpts from an article (Hayek and Rawls: An Unlikely Fusion) from the website of Australia’s pro-labor Evatt Foundation: Hayek fans like Glenn Beck think that all that matters is that Hayek had some clever arguments about the impracticality of socialism. They are clueless when it comes to the "impracticality" of defending capitalism without the foundation of philosophy and ethics.

We can say what we want about his ulterior motives, but the truth is Obama may well deserve some credit here. During his presidential campaign, he was the one candidate who challenged the assumption that we should trust the Pakistani leadership. George Bush was in denial that our Pakistani allies could commit the treachery of hiding Bin Laden. Now it seems clear they were doing just that. Bin Laden was living in a huge compound that was only 60 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. Obama was sharp enough to keep the Pakistani's from knowing about this operation until it was too late for them to warn Bin Laden. If George Bush had half a brain, Bin Laden would likely have been dead years ago. The Navy Seals deserve enormous credit, but Obama, unlike the naieve Mr. Bush, made it possible for the mission to be successful. He gets some kudos as well. Let's give credit where credit is due. Surprise, surprise. surprise, Usama. No 72 virgins for you. Just well-deserved oblivion. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving sack of manure.

C-SPAN's Book TV devoted three hours to a discussion with prolific libertarian author Tibor Machan earlier today (Sunday, May 1). In many ways, Machan is an archtypical libertarian. He credits Ayn Rand as an important influence on his writing but artfully drops the context of the Objectivist philosophy whenever he defends libertarianism or capitalism. When Book TV interviews an author, they always display a list of the author's favorite books. In Machan’s case, this list was particularly interesting. Neither The Fountainhead nor Atlas Shrugged made the list. Nor were there any of Rand’s numerous nonfiction collections of philosophical essays. Of the dozen or so books listed, alongside various libertarian and fiction writers, the only work by Ayn Rand cited was Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. So are we to conclude that Machan agrees with Objectivist epistemology while holding little regard for Objectivist metaphysics , ethics or esthetics? Actually, such a conclusion, if verified, would not shock me at all. To say that Machan's grasp of Objectivism is superficial would be like saying that Christians rarely question the source of moral values. The conclusion is too obvious to be offered as any sort of insight. And this explains why libertarianism, by itself, is so utterly futile. One example will make this clear. A viewer referred to Obama's recent speech on the economy and asked what Machan would say in answer to the following remarks by the President: "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There's nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don't have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.” In other words, the viewer asked if Machan disagreed with Obama's view that the rich were obligated to help the poor. Did Machan respond by forcefully asserting that a rich man has a moral right to exist for his own sake? Did he state clearly that the individual who earns his money through productive work has the moral right to spend it in any way he pleases? Did he point out that a rational defense of capitalism requires that we dispense with the religious moral view that we are our brother's keeper? Did he offer a defense of rational self-interest? Of course not. Machan merely repeated the libertarian bromide that no one should be forced to spend their money in the way the government wishes. That kind of superficial political argument is eviscerated as soon as the first dim-witted liberal trots out the latest cancer-stricken homeless victim with another pathetic sob story. Nobody is going to care about how the person is saved from destruction. If we are morally obligated to save the person, force will be used to achieve that goal. End of story. Freedom be damned. Later in the interview, Machan discussed the issue of animal rights. He argued that animals do not have rights, but was unable to articulate the philosophical distinction that the human being’s rational, conceptual mode of consciousness requires freedom as a prerequisite for proper functioning. In other words, that the mind does not function under threat of force. He was as inept at defending the concept of human rights as he was at defending the moral basis of human rights. (Machan has a book on this topic. He has apparently written a book on just about any topic one could imagine. I have no idea if he does a better job of defending human rights in the book.) That's the futility and intellectual bankruptcy of libertarianism. It's a shame that, when choosing authors to interview, BookTV seems to place a greater premium on how prolific an author is as opposed to how well they articulate a coherent viewpoint. Writing a lot of words is no guarantee that they are going to add up to anything important or meaningful. In this case, the viewer would have been left with the impression that Ayn Rand--like Machan--had no genuine rational defense for her radical viewpoint. Normally one would be thankful that so many C-Span viewers were exposed to the ideas of Ayn Rand. In this case, I'm not so sure it didn't do more damage than good.