SARRISAN 1 SEPTEMBER 2008
"But lets say that a rational man (Objectivist) joins the military, under the premise that he wishes to protect his own freedom and the freedom of his loved ones, and under the understanding that the country he was fighting for was a free, more or less moral one. But then, down the line, the country takes a change of direction and becomes not so moral, and takes a military action that he believes to be irredeemably immoral (For instance, using the military as a police force to subjugate it's people). Technically, he took upon his shoulders certain risks when he signed the enlistment contract. But on the other hand, he is convinced that the way the military is being used - and thus the actions he is forced to take himself - are immoral."
The truth about Objectivism, Sarrisan, is that it is unflinching in its response: that soldier cannot be merely a kind soldier going about the course of his duties (those duties actually cause him to do that which he knows to be wrong). He cannot simply defy his military superiors either; because as such he remains a soldier. The steely position of Objectivism is to see to it that that soldier resigns and accepts a court-martial, or perhaps he flees to a different land, he suffers exile. He becomes an un-soldier in those conditions. He turns a 360 degree turn from where he was as a soldier taking orders that he knows to be wrong.
Switching gears now to the creation of Objectivism by Ayn Rand, we must ask ourselves a few questions. Did she take these steely positions because she was a woman without children, without the nuances and complexities of motherhood? Or did she choose not to be a mother in loyalty to her philosophical position?
Would she appreciate us looking at the context in which her ideas were shaped? If she could write about Marilyn Munroe in the context of American society at large, perhaps she would not have a problem with us writing about her in the context of her day and time.
The challenge for the modern Objectivist, as I see it, is how to look at people. We can more easily slot a policy or a regime into a category (such as communistic, socialistic, collectivist) but it is not so easy when we are assessing the lives of those around us. That is why when you talk about the decision to have a child or the soldier's doubts as to duty, the lines of thought can become blurred. The most objective thing a mother can do is fill out a form in the child's name: questions of health, discipline and spirituality are not so easy to define.
Last night I came across an old chat room discussion on this forum's website between SMS in France and a number of other members. This discussion resulted in my signing up. I had read Ayn Rand's work as a young Bahamian women and I found her story so exciting. She had escaped from behind The Iron Curtain. When I was a child, we were just hearing about the Gulag and all that. She came from the cruellest of winters, from the cruellest of regimes. She, it is reported, left a lover behind.
When I read Ayn Rand's later essays (one on the pious treatment of Marilyn Munroe, celebrating the sensuous beauty of M.M.) I was struck by the rich sensuousness of Ayn Rand herself. She, an Objectivist, writing of barren landscapes in her novels. childless in real-time, had a rich woman's heart. I love her even today.
But I really look at the vista that was 1950's America. There was so much wealth; but Americans were happy with simpler lives. I place in this context the pictures in my child's mind of "Frosty the Snowman" and the town with just a few modest buildings. Ayn Rand began her influence on America in such a context. The American mind was simpler, less cluttered and very generous in spirit.
Thank you for allowing me to share a little today.
