Search the Community

It's a bit ironic that you chose malaria as an example where increased empathy and concern would help. As dream weaver mentioned, DDT completely eradicated malaria everywhere it was used. It was made illegal for perceived and inaccurate environmental reasons and now for the past 40 years nearly a million people(mostly children) die every year as a result of their well meaning concern. I realize, of course, that this particular example is not critical to your inquiry, but it does serve well to warn of the immense damage that can be caused by well meaning heroes with such an empathetic world view. Empathy is a strong and powerfully motivating emotion-so powerful in fact that it, in my opinion, more often than not causes people to act unthoughtfully. Even something as seemingly benevolent as food aid to a famine stricken country has a large context that can quite easily eliminate much or usually all of the benefit. Outside of the obvious use of the aid by a petty dictator to starve and control elements of the population, it has the long term effect of artificially increasing the size of the population far past the point that an agrarian civilization lacking in appropriate levels of technology and education could ever realistically maintain itself autonomously. The same difficulty accurately scales to individual behavior. Enabling a loved one engaged in an unhealthy habit or behavior, whether it's bailing out a gambler or overreacting to a 4 year old's separation anxiety, almost always ends in far more harm than even completely ignoring the problem would ever have caused. I think Rand's interest in Hickman had less to do with his psychopathy and more to do with the sociopathic elements of his personality. The ability to override the powerful inclination to help someone because your focused mind acknowledges the long term harm that would ensue, is nothing less than a heroic act. You can see this element in play in a great number of places, but one that leaps to mind for me is Francisco's desire to save Rearden from his investments in his hollowed out copper enterprise. Or even in Dagny's primary struggle to save the world through her efforts when she leaves the valley. Sociopaths and psychopaths override their empathy naturally but they probably served to help her delineate the behavior required of her heroes to be truly good and just empathetic.

I don't think you're ever going to change the minds of the willfully ignorant. However, her thoughts on the matter were an interesting. People who would do anything to discredit Rand (short of actually picking up a book) cherry pick certain phrases and standing alone, out of context they do look pretty bad. I'd highly recommend reading the Journals of Ayn Rand. You can read her thoughts on Hickman in context, in their entirety. It is nearly impossible to mistake her intentions.

This week's podcast by Amy Peikoff ("Don't Let It Go"): From her site: "Don’t Let It Go…Unheard #10 available for download" Recent criticisms of Ayn Rand [including the hit pieces using Miss Rand's comments on William Hickman to attack Miss Rand and Objectivism]: 3:04 – 23:40 Jailing of Terry Jones: 23:40 – 52:09 Miscellaneous round up: 52:09 – end Edit: Miss Peikoff's podcasts are now available on iTunes

Won't happen. Or if it does, it would surprise me. How much damage did Nathaniel and Barbara Branden do, for how many years (answer: about 20!) before someone at ARI finally decided to take the bull by the horns and they got behind Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics? Personally, I was taken in by the Brandens for many years. There's an attitude in place there that they won't dignify smears with a response. 99% of the time I agree with that policy, however every once in a while a smear "grows legs" and becomes part of what "everyone knows" about somebody, and to not answer it at that point simply is interpreted as being embarrassed by the truth. The Hickman smear is a case in point. It's also possible that the "she took welfare and/or did drugs, the lying hypocrite" smear(s) will achieve the same status of "everyone knows" before someone at ARI decides maybe silence is not the best policy.

No, it doesn't give her any credibility. If someone were to say that Rand's views on the Hickman murder case give credibility to her critics who think that Objectivism is twisted, would you agree? If I were to say that such critics of Objectivism were trying to confirm their biases, would you say that I was psychologizing? J

Your desire to confirm your biases and judge a person's aesthetic theories based on his views on other things is like people wanting to judge Rand's metaphysics, epistemology or ethics based on her views on women presidents, homosexuality, the William Hickman case, or her contradictions on architecture qualifying as an art form. You'd actually have to read and understand a person's views on a given subject to understand them. And when it comes to an artistic style or movement, you'd have to read several people's views, since people who are associated with a style or movement usually tend to have strongly differing opinions about what they're doing and why. Judging them as if they have a single collective mind is inappropriate. I wrote, "The short answer: multiple viewpoints." Alfa replied, Generally, to expand the expressive power of their art, and to get closer to the essence of visual art. If you're actually interested, I think you should read what artists had to say in their own words in their full context, rather than just reading online excerpts. I'd also suggest giving them a friendly reading rather than a hostile one, and that you should keep in mind that they often use certain words or terms differently than Rand did. So, you're saying that you're somehow being virtuous in treating individuals as a collective, and in trying to judge perhaps thousands of paintings as expressing the same "metaphysical value-judgments," and I'm being "concrete-bound" in reminding you that the artists who painted them were individuals with individual points of view? I wrote, "As is true of any work of art, individual Cubist paintings 'communicate' different things to different people." Alfa replied, No, it's a fact of reality. People rarely agree on what any work of art "communicates," and that includes Objectivists. In the past dozen years online, I've seen countless arguments among Objectivists about their differing interpretations of art. But let me guess: you believe that your interpretation of any artwork is the objective interpretation, and anyone who disagrees with you is merely giving subjective opinions? Is that they way it works? J P.S. I think a previous discussion here on OO on The Fountainhead is a good illustration of just how subjective certain Objectivists can be while believing that they're the ultimate in objectivity when it comes to interpreting and judging art. If you read the thread, you'll notice that my part of the conversation, which begins about here, was based on the actual content of the novel, where those opposing my position were bending themselves into pretzels in order not to accept the objective reality that I identified. They were apparently very emotionally attached to wanting Roark to not be immoral by Objectivist standards, despite the fact that he was. J

The answer, at least partially, can be found in the introduction to "The Night of January 16th". I know that it was mentioned in the journals but I highly recommend reading it in full. The way I understand it is that Hickman was an abstraction. The attraction was not conceptual (and thus details of the case were not relevant) but emotional, on a sense of life level. She used this case for her projection - like one can use a piece of art (even if the artist intended/meant something very different (even opposite) than what you getting out of it - it happens to me a lot). This was about the idea of individualism/independence - about the psychology it requires to be daring in this way. She did not admire this particular man. Her comments are not identifications about this particular case - but rather a hypothetical - conceptual exploration of emotional reaction. Rather than repressing it - she explored it. Sense of life reaction is not conceptual - one may react positively even though the details are horrifying. In my opinion this is a testament in a way to her underlying positive evaluation of herself (deeply rooted conviction "I am good") because I think many would have dismissed the feeling due to the details of the case. It is very likely that the same is true of her journal comments related to society. It could have been her projection in relation to society's reaction to radicalism, toward those who boldly project that they don't need the approval of society, toward those who reject the notion that consensus, the majority of opinion - is a valid standard of truth and value. It could have been an exploration of the reaction of society when it realizes that it lost it's grasp over the individual.

Rand had only recently fled from the tyranny of Soviet Russia and arrived in a country with no friends or family around her, so it might not be surprising that her worldview was rather pessimistic at this point. But if you read the whole Hickman journal entry, you can see that she hadn't yet identified altruism as the ethical system that poisons everything. Therefore her judgement of people and their actions maybe sounds more severe than what an older Rand would said. Bear in mind that these notes are preparation for a dystopian novel, where all the evils would be purposefully exaggerated etc. to make a point. I think this sort of pessimism is quite common among people who think there is something 'wrong' with the world (be it polluting, or materialism, or secularism, or capitalism, or 3rd world poverty) but can't quite explain it fully: they are nice enough to individual acquaintances, but are incredibly scathing when they talk about humanity in general, about 'the way things are going,' and so on

I think this is just standard Rand. If you read Atlas Shrugged she describes the masses of passengers who die on the crashed train as being guilty or deserving the crash (if I recall correctly). I don't think her Hickman comments are unique in that regard.

Actually believing what? You made sure to cut off the quote before she explains who and what she was referring to, in the hopes that you'll find a few people lazy enough to believe your lie that she was referring to the "average person". Here's what she was referring to: "Oh, that their best is so very small! Oh, that their worst is so very small! And oh, how horrid it is to be small!". That is from Nietzsche, and it hints to a belief system that is a far greater evil than Hickman's degeneracy. It is something that, in my humble opinion, doesn't fit many people, but it describes one in this thread pretty well: you. Instead of dabbling in more out of context quotes and superficial, lazy, daft observations about them, you should do some reading, understand both the context of the full journal entry (by reading it and the writings of the people she criticized in it), as well as the context of the Nietzsche quote and his overall philosophy. Then you can come back and add a few informed, honest and helpful questions and comments to this thread, instead of this aimless trolling. There actually are contradictions in that journal entry worthy of criticism (Ayn Rand's later work resolves those contradictions). Too bad you haven't gotten around to identifying them, so that someone could direct you towards their resolution. Instead you're concerned with finding something that you can react to on an emotional level, to point at it and hate it without having to actually think. That need for emotional satisfaction devoid of intellectual work is a symptom of our current society (as evidenced by all the "gotcha" style of journalism, directed against pretty much anyone in the public eye), just like it was a symptom of the society Ayn Rand was describing. But it's not true that the average person feels it, it's only a select few. Most people I come across actually struggle to understand things, they rarely have this craving, for a piece of sensationalist meat to sink their hateful teeth into, that you are so eloquently displaying.

"So Rand thinks that most people have worse sins than cutting up a little girl? How horrifying that she views society to be so loathsome." I, too, find it extremely troublesome. Plenty of people seem to want to make excuses (her young age, her Nietsche phase, taken out of context, etc.), but that doesn't cover the belief that the average person is WORSE than a butchering killer. It's especially weird since she left Russia because everything in Russia was bad and America was the wonderful country of bright freedom. So she gets here, and now AMERICANS are totally despicable. As for her admiration that Hickman was unrepentent, the same can certainly be said for most of the prison population today. I don't see how one can escape that this view of mankind if horrifying. And sad.

To my understanding, Rand was more interested in the public's reaction to Hickman than the man himself, and seemed to think that the reaction was more due to his taking pride in defying the morals of society than in the crimes he actually committed. This aspect of his situation intrigued her, and provided fuel for a later short story which incorporated a proud man on trial in front of an outraged society, without the serial murder part. With this in mind, the more appropriate Hitler comparison might be admiring or at least acknowledging how successful Hitler was at propagandizing himself and gaining public opinion during his rise to power. Plenty of healthy, moral people have spent countless hours analyzing Hitler's Nazi propaganda and how it was so successful, and have learned valuable things about propaganda, charisma, etc that have nothing to do with the evil things Hitler did.

Ayn Rand was massively influenced by Nietzsche when she was younger. Then she discovered Aristotle and realised that Nietzsche was wrong about a lot of things, although still maintained that Nietzsche had a brilliant sense of life afterwards. As for Hickman, Rand respected his integrity and the fact that he refused to bow to the whims of society but utterly opposed and condemned his actions.

Ronald E. Merrill thinks so in his book "The Ideas of Ayn Rand." Also, Rand described serial killer Hickman as a true "superman." Does anyone have any more information on this? Like someone who has read some of her earlier journal entries? I'd appreciate it.

Hickman made the news because of his murder, Rand found out about him through the news, then read up on his background, and praised him in some regards, but not in regard to the murder itself, nor did she try to find an excuse for the murder. The same could occur here, point for point, no?

His wife and kids were not in the house when he lit it on fire, as far as I know. They'd gone to stay at a hotel or something. Like I said, he used the wrong method to get his message out, but I empathize with him nonetheless. I'm focusing on the man and the ordeal he went through, not on the fact that he crashed his plane. Similar to how Rand focused on William Hickman, the man himself and how society probably damaged him, rather than on the brutal crime he committed.

I see. I was under the impression that as she was educating herself, she had adopted his morality to some degree and in her studies she realized he was wrong. With regards to your comment on the direct quotes, they just seemed to lack characteristics that I associate with her writing. Hickman was a murdering lunatic, and Rand is known for showing a lot of emotion when she condemns someone like that, so I expected more from her on the topic than a critique of societal response and calling him a "degenerate". But, what didn't register with me is that the quotes were from her journals (which I'll most likely wind up subscribing to on account of this embarassing situation), and it isn't likely that she wrote to herself like she was writing to the public.

Even if we set aside whether your characterization of Nietzsche is correct or not, there are several facts about Rand that we do know: 1. She never adopted Nietzsche's view of morality. The only thing that comes close to that would be a statement that she liked Nietzsche before she figured him out. Then she realized that what he was saying was not something she agreed with. That's not a phase, just giving a great mind the benefit of the doubt. 2. Hickman's crime did not ever take a backseat to his attitude, for Rand. She appreciated the attitude without appreciating the crime, or the person for that matter. This second point, by the way, you can find out just by reading this thread. It has direct quotes.

I forget where I read this, but I once saw this part of Ayn Rand's life called her "Nietzsche phase". If she gave any weight to the idea that morality is good for the unwashed mashes, but not good enough for extraordinary men (Ubermensch, anyone?), and that these men should follow their own, subjective "inner law" (chosen by the degree to which it allowed them to impose their will on others), I could see how Hickman's horrific crime could take a back seat to his attitude towards life.

Where does it say she admired a man like that? It is clear that she is conceptualizing and abstracting certain factors from the individual's character and social issues from other people's responses to his character. Many criminals have been idealized and admired in abstract form from Bonnie and Clyde, to Al Capone, John Dillinger, the Mafia families in NY (The Godfather), etc., etc. Many times have criminals been presented as individuals against society. This whole subject is amazing to me that anyone could think that she is admiring a criminal for his criminal actions. Those who attack Rand for this analysis of Hickman are actually attacking reason.

I never understood why Rand said that the people jeering Hickman had far worse crimes on their consciences.

I find this quite distressing (the Hickman thing). Not so much that she found something to admire in a loathsome killer (I can understand how that might be interesting from an artistic perspective, or how in the 1920s details of news stories didn't travel so fast. Plus her later writings contradict those sentiments), but its the way Rand attacked the public that bugs me. Her criticisms of the 'fat, little' (little seems to be the no.1 Objectivist insult) jurors and the suggestion that the hostile Joe Public had probably done 'worse' seem utterly ridiculous. Maybe I'm being too harsh, I mean the main characters in her novels, due to their society, often lead spiritually tortured early lives where they don't know what to think of their fellow men, until they have their revelations. Maybe they were more autobiographical than I thought. Hmm. Unless there is a huge amount of misquoting going on.

Did Rand write those comments about this William Hickman?

Books 5, 6, and 7 of the Harry Potter series don't stand well alone, but the Half Blood Prince book was much better than the movie in this regard. There was more re-introduction of characters and there was definitely more of an independent plot. If you've ever read the Death Gate series by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman (great books if a bit laden with altruistic themes), they had exactly the same situation. It's a series of seven books, the first four of which stand pretty well on their own and the last three of which cover the resolution of the meta-plot that underlay the first four books. In fact, if you enjoyed Harry Potter and would like something a bit more grown up (in that the characters are adults instead of teenagers--in some respects J.K. Rowling's writing is more adult, so it probably balances out), you might want to give Death Gate a look. Now that I think about it the overall plot structure of the two series are AMAZINGLY similar.

She was thinking about portraying a protagonist who would have committed a crime, and yet had a sense of life that one could admire. The particular work was titled "The Little Street". Later, in "The Night of January 16th" she created another criminal protagonist. As the editor to her journal points out, she uses the introduction to that play to explain that she does not support criminality, but certain psychological characteristics. Again, in the Fountainhead, we see similar characterization in Wynand's early rise (criminality is not the essential). We get a brief glimpse of it in Atlas Shrugged, where Readen is looking at a young man who is organizing a team to sell him (is it ore?) illegally, and thinks that this could be him in his younger days. Back to her journal, she says this: There are more, pretty extensive, notes on the Hickman case. Rand says that she does not want to make up details that are exaggerated; as an author, she wants to bring them together in "The Little Street". as for the jury. She appears to want to show that the jury in her story is guilty too. I see an embryo of thoughts that would later underlie the scene in Atlas Shrugged where the train is stuck in a tunnel and "innocent" passengers die. From a vantage point of psychology, ethics and motivation --- though not from action -- the we have the guilty trying the guilty: that is what is dramatic. Basically, the article to which the OP linked is a smear job.