Search the Community

Let me see if I have this right. This Hickman person was a loathsome kidnapper and killer but (according to Rand) he suggested something heroic to Rand. I used the wiki article for my information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman#Ayn_Rand.27s_The_Little_Street I can not think of any rational basis on which Ayn Rand evaluated Hickman. But then again, I am not a novelist. ruveyn1

I think the only questionable comment that Rand made was this: "It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal." What sins and crimes is she condeming them for? What does she think they are guilty of? It must be pretty bad if it's worse than murder and mutilation. Was their crime their ordinariness? Or their resenting people who were more successful than they were, or more individualistic, or what? Did she really believe that such sins and crimes were worse than the murder and mutilation of a little girl? And how did she know that masses of people held the beliefs that she claimed they held? When they expressed outrage at Hickman's crimes, how did Rand determine that they weren't really outraged about the crime, but about the criminal's heroic and individualistic demeanor? J

We can speculate till we are blue in the face, I won't. I wonder how comparable the mass hatred of her is to Hickman. I guess I would have to familiarizemyself with him and what they were saying about him. Casey situation has to be far more loathsome of said masses hatred of her, because she was not convicted of murder, while Hickman was.

I don't know much about him. But I do Casey. Perhaps her mass hatred was way worse in degree than Hickman because he was convicted of murder, while Casey was not, and people call her all kinds of things, a child murderer, etc., such as Nicky just did. Btw, you did not back up or substantiate your claim Nicky.

No, the proper principle is "judge, and prepare to be judged." I am not going to try to read profundity into the private journal entries of a then still amateur aspiring writer just into her 20's. Elements of the Hickman situation had dramatic potential in that 'one vs. the masses' style, that is all. Going into the full quote makes it clear what she was focusing upon, and it was not Hickman himself. There are other threads here about that, you (intellectualammo) have been here long enough to have encountered them.

Since you made the parallel, do you at least realize that Hickman was evil, despicable and loathsome?

I came across this quote of Rand in regards to Hickman in her journals, and reading it, it reminds me of the public in regards to Casey Anthony. Do you think it's applicable in any way? "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal... What does she mean by it?

http://www.theledger.com/article/20130104/COLUMNISTS03/130109795 Shouldn't the advice be for everyone to embrace Ayn Rand, discover her, be introduced to her ideas, not "let her go"? And what, pray tell, is an Ayn Rand fetish? On the third page, he's smearing Rand using Hickman.

Here's a couple of examples off the top of my head: 1) Ayn Rand was against government handouts, but took Medicare, what's up with that? 2) Why does Objectivism reject religion? 3) Why is 'force' bad in Objectivism? 4) Why does Objectivism advocate capitalism? 5) Isn't selfishness a bad thing? 6) If the government is the source of all problems today, why not get rid of it altogether? 7) Objectivism is a cult, isn't it? 8) Didn't Ayn Rand love capitalism because she hated Russia so much while she lived there? 9) Doesn't accepting Objectivism's ideas turn you into a mindless follower of Ayn Rand, a Randroid? 10) Why did Ayn Rand boot her best student Nathaniel Branden out of her circle? 11) Why isn't Objectivism taken seriously in academia? 12) Why is charity not a virtue in Objectivism? 13) How does Objectivism differentiate selfishness from narcissism or being self-absorbed? 14) Why does Objectivism view Immanuel Kant as a villain? 15) How did Ayn Rand conceive of love? 16) According to the morality of Objectivism, was it proper for the United States to get involved in World War II / Vietnam / Iraq ? 17) What does it mean for 'existence to exist'? 18) I have never seen a John Galt in real life, doesn't that mean Objectivism is too idealistic to be realistic? 19) I think the philosophy of Objectivism is divorced from reality, a giant castle in the clouds. Can you prove me wrong? 20) If I accepted Objectivism, I feel that my individuality would be destroyed. Why is that? 21) Doesn't Ayn Rand's fascination with William Edward Hickman mean her philosophy was deranged? etc.

Oh, well that makes better sense. A plain reading of the OP as it stands is that the book is "wonderful", and a first time poster making that claim on an Objectivist board is bound to be either a ringer or a troll. Here’s an interview clip so anyone unfamiliar can get an idea of Weiss. I’m sure I saw this when it was new, but I’m not rewatching it again now, mainly because I find Thom Hartmann so nauseating and dinner awaits. [media=] There are attacks on Ayn Rand all the time nowadays, it’s hard to get interested in any of them since they almost always contain gross inaccuracies. Here’s one I saw coming from a major London paper just a couple days ago: http://www.guardian....tivist-ayn-rand 800+ comments, who can bother with it? Though I bet there’s some good rebuttals lost in there. And at least a dozen Hickman references.

My apologies for going overboard on that. The only explanation I can offer is that one of my pet peeves is the alleged fan who gushes about "Ann Rand" and her characters "Taggert," "Gault," "Reardon," and "Rourke." (Oddly, I don't think I've ever seen d'Anconia's name butchered.) Of course the asshats out there who have never read the book but participate in the slime campaigns can butcher all they want and it will just make their stupidity more apparent. (You know the slime campaigns: Rand approved of Hickman, Rand used drugs, Rand collected Social Security and Medicaid.... there's a place out there somewhere telling all the mushbrains to put those comments on any comment thread they can find.) I just watched the commentary track... and looked forward to the commentary explaining why they did NOT portray Rearden's guilt-driven disgust with himself the morning after. (To me that's philosophically FAR more important than whether or not the sex was rough, since it brings up in yet another way the problem that Rearden is having, giving his sanction to his enemies.) I forgot to mention that criticism earlier, and I think if there was _exactly one_ thing I could change about the movie, that would be it. Anyhow... they claim they chose not to do it that way because it would have stopped the pacing in its tracks. (Bull! Like that long morning after on the patio scene and wilderness shots they showed instead, kept up the pace....) If there were TWO things I could change... The Mysterious Stranger With No Neck came to Wyatt's house just a bit too early; I'd have reordered things a bit to make it clear that Wyatt "gave up" after the directives that Mouch so loudly announced. If there were Three--Galt's voiceover and Ellis Wyatt's phone message at the very end gave away WAY too much to the first time viewer/reader. Four--add two flashbacks... Dagny and Francisco as lovers (with Francisco not looking and acting like a schlub), and the scene where Francisco struggles with his decision to go on strike, while lying in bed with Dagny. This is important stuff, but it wouldn't be seriously too late to do this in Part II, perhaps as Dagny is continuing to work the mystery of why everyone of any worth is disappearing, she can consider the case of Francisco.. who didn't disappear but seems to have become valueless. Again I don't consider d'Anconia and Akston's demeanor, appearance, behavior, whatever in the outside world fatal changes... this is now a visual medium and the viewer is supposed to wonder why great men are no longer carrying burdens... and the best way to suggest it _visually_ is to show them as unkempt slackers, regardless of the way it's described in the non-visual book where a lot of exposition can take place. (Would Akston have been better done in a spotless diner, cooking a hamburger for Dagny, and the conversation occurring more as in the book? Yes, I think so... but it's not a _gigantic_ flaw.) If they act/behave this way _in the valley_ in Part III, yeah, that's an irretrievable screwing of the pooch. One thing that came through in the commentary was that the producers talked a lot about Objectivism... but it was subtly off point. They discussed a lot of "why should these people produce when they are going to get punished" and "we should thank these people for what they've done to make us more productive" and even brought up the example of the inventor of the motor deserving to be a trillionaire if he can reduce energy costs to the equivalent of four cents a gallon. They then point out that the inventor would be vilified for being rich rather than thanked for cutting the cost of energy. They got a lot right. But they danced around the forthright _egoism_ that is properly the justification for capitalism.

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I answered questions on Ayn Rand and William Hickman, sustainable agriculture, product placements in art, teaching young people to use credit cards wisely, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast: NoodleCast #100: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast As always, the full archive of past episodes are available as podcasts. You can review them and subscribe to the feed at www.NoodleCast.com. Videos from the webcast that I've posted to YouTube can be found on my YouTube channel. Watch the Rationally Selfish Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well, drawn from a queue of questions submitted by listeners. To join us, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour!

For Sunday's live Rationally Selfish Webcast, I'll answer questions on Ayn Rand and William Hickman, sustainable agriculture, product placements in art, young people and credit cards, and more. Come join the fun! What: Live Webcast on Practical Ethics Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 09 October 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.RationallySelfish.com Here are this week's questions: Question 1: Ayn Rand and William Hickman: Did Ayn Rand draw inspiration from the serial-killer William Hickman? I ask due to this article on Alternet: "Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer" ( http://bit.ly/r4ST0e ). According to the article, Rand idolized the serial killer William Hickman and used him as inspiration for the leads male characters in her books, notably Howard Roark. Also, Rand is said to seek an environment in which sociopaths like Hickman can thrive. Are these claims true or not? If so, would they affect the validity of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism? Question 2: Sustainable Agriculture: Is "sustainable agriculture" a legitimate concept? Many advocates of a paleo diet also advocate "sustainable agriculture," including Robb Wolff and Mat Lelonde. Is sustainable agriculture a valid concept? What does (or should) it entail? Should consumers be concerned that their food producers practice "sustainable agriculture"? Question 3: Product Placements in Art: Is product placement in art a breach of artistic integrity? Given that an artist must select every aspect of an artistic work, does delegating some selection to the highest bidder breach the integrity of the work? Does the type of artwork matter? Would it be okay in movies and television but not paintings? Why? Question 4: Young People and Credit Cards: How can young adults learn to use credit cards responsibly? Some young adults (usually college students) seem to make terrible financial decisions, often getting themselves into serious and overwhelming credit card debt. Others seem to handle their new financial responsibilities just fine. How would you recommend that parents teach their teenage children to use credit cards wisely? What advice would you give to young people headed to college about managing their finances well? After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." If you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen later to the audio-only podcasts. Visit NoodleCast to listen to past episodes or subscribe to the podcast feed. Also, you can submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue. I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

<p> </p> <p>What is that place about? What does FSTDT an acronym of?</p> <p> </p> <p>I read the thread. The Hickman thing has several people there in a tizzy. You need to stop attempting to persuade people and post the full exact word-for-word journal entry written by Rand about Hickman. Only then can you point out that she wasn't even focused on Hickman, but the crowd and its reaction the dramatic possibilities she is looking for. You did point out that she was only 23, but left unstated the tremendous intellectual distance she travelled between then and the mature Ayn Rand that explicitly rejected Neitchze. She actually retroactively edited <em>We the Living</em> to remove Neitchzean elements. In permitting this to be published David Harriman screwed up big time, and Peikoff is to blame too. That fucker Prescott has done some real damage in smearing Rand's reputation with that private journal entry which never should have been published. </p> <p> </p> <p>But I don't know why you even try. </p> <p> </p> <p>A <a href="http://fstdt.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&amp;board=rp&amp;thread=9946&amp;post=340310"><u>moderator</u> posts</a>:</p> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>When a moderator writes like that it sets the tone of the &quot;discussion&quot;, don't you think? It is open season on you, no one needs to be logical, reasonable or even polite.</div> <div> </div> <div>From the same page:</div> <div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div>Poor selection of your battlefield.</div> <div> </div> <div>Also, as a newbie to that board they have no idea who you are or how you think. Naturally they will think the worst. You need to establish a reputation for common sense on a variety of ordinary issues before trying to enter into so abstract a discussion. That would also give you an opportunity to learn whether a real discussion is even possible.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> </div>

Since I used "the CD' for the quotes above, I thought I;d share a few of the other references that came up. Other than these letters, here were some notes from her Journals, the first from her infamous note on Hickman...

Tanaka repeats his assertion that Ayn Rand wrote an essay on Hickman, dishonestly abusing the meaning of “essay” in the process. I think what I wrote about perfect makes sense in the full post. I’m not going to write about details of AR and Hickman. The subject is disgusting and doesn’t interest me that much. It’s inconceivable that AR – later in her mature years when she better understood English and Americans – would either defend any aspect of Hickman or denounce his detractors for hating him as an egoist rather than a creepshow killer. Tanaka – he of the private disorganized and rambling diary “essay” – may have the last word, I shall not reply.

It was an essay. In a private journal. Imagine that. Where did I (or anyone else in this thread) claim or imply that she was perfect? What was the evaluation, and how was it wrong? Be specific. Give facts, not opinions, both about Ayn Rand's (now public) essay, and Hickman.

Regarding Zoid’s last post ... 1. AR made a mistake in her evaluation of Hickman. She made a mistake in her evaluation of many, perhaps most, of the journalists condemning him (e.g. Edgar Rice Burroughs). Two private mistakes. 2. Reread Zoid’s earlier statement: “ ... since sociopathy is characterized by a habitual disregard for the rights of others, and since rights are central to Rand’s philosophic thought, it’s clear that she would never have deemed such psychological illness ‘a gift.’” It’s a fallacious, rationalistic argument. What she said in the 1920s is what she said. She could have made a mistake despite whatever is central to her current -- or later -- philosophic thought. In fact, just from reading the journal, no rationalistic or otherwise argument is necessary: she did not say psychological illness is a gift. However she did admire Hickman for seeming to have been born without the ability to care what others think. She makes it clear that she’s purposely taking this out of context. On the other hand she condemns the journalists for not taking this out of context. She doesn’t put it that way, but that’s what it amounts to. My theory is that she projected her experience of Russians onto the hapless journalists. I think this accounts for her last entry, evidently written after she had cooled down, where she says to herself, in so many words, take it easy AR. Dreamspirit: “... it is a little upsetting to hear that the person you admire greatly once viewed something you think is monstrous with positive emotions.” Indeed. How to explain it? AR was good at separating one aspect of something from another aspect, focusing on just one. In the case of Hickman she blundered, privately (and very early in her career), but better examples come to mind. She praised the Marxists, not for their ideology, but for their method of spreading it. She once praised Chomsky – I’m not making this up – for his reasoned denunciation of Skinner. She opposed U.S. entry into WW II, not because she loved the Nazis but because she loved America. Later when asked to write a screenplay praising Oppenheimer et al for their work on the Manhattan Project, she was willing to do it in order that the Project not be praised as a triumph of government science. She focused solely on the fact that it got done. (Fortunately that movie never made it past preliminary planning. Later she used Oppenheimer -- perhaps along with Millikan, who was much in the news at the time promoting government science -- as part of the basis for the character Stadler.) A detractor could misrepresent all this: she was a Marxist, she loved Chomsky, she hated the America Firsters, she thought government science was great, etc.

Don’t know what whYNOT is talking about. Nothing I wrote should be construed to mean what he’s arguing against. Tanaka is mistaken not only about Dreamspirit’s post, but about Ayn Rand ever writing about Hickman in an essay. It was in her very early private journals where she wrote about him, blown way out of proportion by her detractors. Defending Ayn Rand by saying she was perfect, never made a mistake, only helps them.

To the best of my knowledge, every single claim you made about Ayn Rand's position on Hickman and psychopaths in this thread is dead wrong. And I'm pretty confident in my knowledge, especially of her views on Hickman (I read the only essay in which she talks about him).

Zoid’s two arguments are fallacious. (1) One can make a mistake in private just as one can make a mistake in public. (2) The argument: “AR was an Objectivist, an Objectivist thinks X, therefore AR thinks X” neglects the fact that AR was only in her 20s. Give the lady a break. She wasn’t born fully formed and armored like Minerva out of the head of Zeus. I think Dreamspirit’s post #5 is correct. It should be noted that AR sort of retracted these Hickman journal entries at the end, telling herself to calm down – I forget the exact phrase she used.

Given that the context in which she was writing was a private journal and was talking about her personal feelings rather than about formal philosophy, it's not really appropriate to call what she wrote about Hickman a "mistake." In any case, since sociopathy is characterized by a habitual disregard for the rights of others, and since rights are central to Rand's philosophic thought, it's clear that she would never have deemed such psychological illness "a gift."

No, she didn't openly suggest it, but she seemed to have this sympathy and admiration for William Hickman which is a little strange IMO. She did, in a quote seem to suggest that some of the traits sociopaths have are a gift. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was something about not having an organ to process feeling for others. But she did very clearly draw the line about where it becomes degeneracy, so I'm not saying she really believed that it's good to be a psycho, I just don't think she actually understood what he really is. Her admiration of Hickman was emotional and not rational. We all make some intellectual mistakes, no matter how precise we are.

An interesting analogue to this situation is the film 300. (or the old one, perhaps) We like watching the Spartans fighting off the invading hoards because they represent great skill and courage, and most of all freedom (and for the altruists, sacrifice for the greater good). But in reality Sparta was closer to Nazi Germany than any heroic republic: allegedly Sparta subjugated a neighbouring state/city for centuries and as part of their warrior training rituals, sent their teenagers to kill one of these people, as their rite of passage. All 300 of those Spartans must have been murderers. However in reading about the true story of the battle of Thermopylae, filmmakers have obviously discarded these horrible truths, and kept the noble elements, because even though that's not what DID happen, it's what MIGHT have happened, and it makes better art. Similarly Rand saw some inspirational qualities in Hickman (and conversely, some cynical qualities in his accusers), and wondered what sort of story they would make if she left out the evil traits and deeds. If you enjoyed the film 300, or 300 Spartans, then you should be able to sympathize with Rand's perspective. Certainly, liking 300 doesn't make you a Nazi/Fascist.

First of all, you have bought into a misinterpretation of what Rand meant by the lack of an ability to consider others. In short, Roark is unable to consider the judgments of others, not the welfare of others. A major theme of the book is second-handedness, which essentially means living one's life according to the opinions and judgments of others. Keating, the ultimate incarnation of this phenomenon, makes all his decisions based on currying the favor of others or fulfilling their expectations, and finds that his life is empty and meaningless, because it is fundamentally selfless. Roark, on the other hand, is the antithesis of this, because he doesn't have "the ability to consider others," meaning he is unable to consider the judgments or opinions of others in living his life. Magazine reviews of his buildings have absolutely no impact on his opinion of his own work; he is completely secure in his own decisions. It is in this way that he is unable to consider others. It is demonstrably false that he is unable to consider the welfare of others, as shown by any number of actions that he takes (involving the woman he loves in his detonation of Cortlandt for the sake of saving the night watchman, for example). In every one of Rand's admirable characters, we see instances of benevolence and concern for the welfare of others; this is a result of their moral egoism. By contrast, the villains who practice altruism explicitly find that as a result they do not care for the welfare of others. Also, for the Hickman thing, if you carefully read that journal entry, you can see that she never refers to the adult, psychopathic Hickman as a "beautiful soul;" rather, she calls him a "degenerate" and a "monster." What's happening in that journal entry is that she is fantasizing a possible backstory for Hickman (as part of thinking about a short story) where a young Hickman comes into the world as a proud, independent, individualistic person who encounters a society completely inimical to these characteristics. This kind of society plays a major role in his becoming a monster, in her theoretical history. Look carefully; all positive references to Hickman are actually to this hypothetical young Hickman, pre-psychopath. References to the actual adult serial-killer Hickman are strongly negative. She would not commend an attitude of complete indifference towards the welfare of others, but she would certainly commend someone who defended the view that they can be a moral person without giving to charity. Giving to charity is a matter of personal values, and people can vary a great deal in those. Every time she addresses the subject of charity, you can see that her primary concern is not judging the act of charity itself but emphasizing that it is not the core of morality, that it is a matter of personal values, which must be laid upon a solid foundation of egoism. She was concerned with this issue of guilt as a symptom of the altruist ethics which pervades our modern world. It is this same altruistic ethics which acts to mire major regions of the world in poverty. The solution to poverty and suffering is not charity, but egoism, production, capitalism. The rich man's guilt for not helping others and poverty and suffering are not opposing concerns, but symptoms of the same phenomenon.