brian0918 Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 I read The Fountainhead a couple years ago and liked it. The film was alright too, although not nearly as in-depth or relatable. I'm about a third of the way through Atlas Shrugged and like it so far. However, as was the case with The Fountainhead, Rand rarely ever mentions them eating, and you never read about them going to the bathroom, or buying clothes, or putting on makeup. While these minor details are left out of most books, the goal of the book for Rand is to explain her philosophy. With that in mind, I ask the question: given the intense purposefulness of their every action, do Dominique Francon and Dagny Taggart wear makeup? How about perfume? If so, for what purpose? I guess my general question is what is the Objectivist stance on personal aesthetic beauty. It's of minor concern, but has been bugging me. Another random question: what is the Objectivist stance on the so-called "universal healthcare" practiced in Canada, for example? What alternatives are suggested by Objectivists? I've been reading the Ayn Rand Lexicon but couldn't find anything specific to that. If they are against universal healthcare, are they also against other public services like the library, 911, or the fire department? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 Brian, Great questions and welcome to the forum! Glad you like the books so far. I think you are ready for Rand's non-fiction where she addresses things like the topice you list out here. The Romantic Manifesto would explain to you why Rand specifically doesn't show literary characters doing such menial tasks as going to the bathroom, as well as discuss her theory of esthetics, and beauty. The short answer is: Does it really matter if she does or if she doens't? Let me ask you this. Is Dagny Taggart a beautiful woman. Does she make herself beautiful? If so, how do you know? I think if you look, you'll already see that Rand has a wonderful sense of esthetic. You just might have missed it. As to the 2nd, the answer is NO, universal healthcare is NOT moral. As to it's moral alternative, well you'll have to wait to get to Galt's speech and I think that will be answered for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted January 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Let me ask you this. Is Dagny Taggart a beautiful woman. Does she make herself beautiful? If so, how do you know? I think if you look, you'll already see that Rand has a wonderful sense of esthetic. You just might have missed it. I think I understand what you're getting at and I'll read these parts more carefully. As to the 2nd, the answer is NO, universal healthcare is NOT moral. As to it's moral alternative, well you'll have to wait to get to Galt's speech and I think that will be answered for you. What about my last question, regarding other public services such as libraries, schools, 911, and the fire department? Would Rand eliminate these latter emergency services? What alternative would there be? Edited January 28, 2008 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 Would Rand eliminate these latter emergency services? What alternative would there be? Eliminate--certainly not. But they should not be run by the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted January 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Eliminate--certainly not. But they should not be run by the government. What is the alternative? Private companies providing competing emergency services for a fee? How would that work in an apartment or condo complex, where it is easy for a fire to spread from one building to another. Would company A be allowed to put out only the fire as it spreads to condos that are its clients, and leave the other condos ablaze while those owners wait for their company B service to arrive (if they even have a fire service)? What happens if these other condos don't have a fire service, and the fire spreads from their condos back to the original condos covered by company A? Isn't it cheaper (in terms of taxes) for everyone to pay a little towards a local public fire department service, than to have to pay some (likely exorbitant) monthly fee to a company? What about forest fires? I'm just not understanding how this would work, and any clarification would be great. Edited January 28, 2008 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) A properly run condo/apartment would probably have a contract with a particular fire service, rather than allowing it's tenants to book their own fire service. Would YOU rent from an apartment that required you to book your own Fire department? I sure as hell wouldn't. This thread has two topics, and will likely be a random mishmash of the two (aesthetics and politics). If it doesn't grow, then no big deal, but for the future, it's a good idea to split these topics into two separate threads. Each of your questions is capable of generating a huge thread. But, as Kendall said, I'd strongly advise finishing "The Shrug" first, as that will hopefully clear up an misconceptions or confusions that will rear their ugly head. Otherwise, any of our answers will require explanation that will end up being reiterated in the book (I know it's odd to say that our political answers will be enhanced by reading a fiction book, but it'll make sense when you finish it). Edited January 28, 2008 by Chops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted January 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 I know it's odd to say that our political answers will be enhanced by reading a fiction book Haven't several presidential candidates grounded their entire campaigns on everyone's favorite fiction book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 While these minor details are left out of most books, the goal of the book for Rand is to explain her philosophy. Ayn Rand's goal in writing fiction was NOT to explain her philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 Haven't several presidential candidates grounded their entire campaigns on everyone's favorite fiction book? Grounded? No. Cherry-picked? Yep It would be NICE if a viable presidential candidate grounded himself in Objectivism, but as it is, an Objectivist cannot be elected without changing the philosophy of the voters significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted January 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 Ayn Rand's goal in writing fiction was NOT to explain her philosophy. I was generalizing based on the Rand quotation at the beginning/end of Atlas Shrugged: "To all the readers who discovered The Fountainhead and asked me many questions about the wider application of its ideas, I want to say that I am answering these questions in the present novel and that The Fountainhead was only an overture to Atlas Shrugged." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyTrooper Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 I was generalizing based on the Rand quotation at the beginning/end of Atlas Shrugged: "To all the readers who discovered The Fountainhead and asked me many questions about the wider application of its ideas, I want to say that I am answering these questions in the present novel and that The Fountainhead was only an overture to Atlas Shrugged." Miss Rand's central purpose to writing Atlas Shrugged was to create a great piece of art. She wanted a fiction book with characters that reflected her philosophy. Spreading her philosophy was a secondary motivation, but yes, as a "romantic realist" novel it does contain much more philosophy than modern "naturalist" writers do (naturalists describe average events, eg. going to the bathroom.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Isn't it cheaper (in terms of taxes) for everyone to pay a little towards a local public fire department service, than to have to pay some (likely exorbitant) monthly fee to a company? No, it's not. The first mistake is to think that the profit motive makes things more expensive. The profit motive makes things cheaper. It is the lack of the profit motive, such as in a govt beaurocracy that makes public services more expensive. Many times the costs are hidden because they are subsidized by general taxation pools. I was generalizing based on the Rand quotation at the beginning/end of Atlas Shrugged: "To all the readers who discovered The Fountainhead and asked me many questions about the wider application of its ideas, I want to say that I am answering these questions in the present novel and that The Fountainhead was only an overture to Atlas Shrugged." Galt's speech is the only complete and explicit presentation of philosphical ideas in AS. The rest of the book is illustrative of its principles. Edited January 28, 2008 by KendallJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted January 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 No, it's not. The first mistake is to think that the profit motive makes things more expensive. The profit motive makes things cheaper. It is the lack of the profit motive, such as in a govt beaurocracy that makes public services more expensive. Many times the costs are hidden because they are subsidized by general taxation pools. I don't know that I can be made to believe that, at least with respect to the local government, without supporting numbers. Are there real examples of fee-based fire services? What would be done about fires on public lands, such as forest fires, which can spread to multiple communities, each of which are made up of numerous neighborhoods/houses, each with different competing fire services? I don't see how that model would work in this situation. Galt's speech is the only complete and explicit presentation of philosphical ideas in AS. The rest of the book is illustrative of its principles. That is basically what I was getting at. We watch Dagny get stuck in various situations, ask the question "What Would Ayn Do?", and Dagny's response is the answer to that question. The problem is that Rand has full control of the situation, so it may not be realistic - that was the source of my concern with the apparent omission of certain details, such as how Dagny can simultaneously not care about others' opinions of her, but then put on makeup, buy expensive clothes, get her hair... did..., etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 No, it's not. The first mistake is to think that the profit motive makes things more expensive. The profit motive makes things cheaper. That too, but the more important point is that taxation is IMMORAL--and (once that point has been adequately made) that is the end of the discussion. Bickering over the particulars of when and in what ways exactly the capitalist solution is cheaper is a waste of time when the question has been definitively answered by ethics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 I don't know that I can be made to believe that, at least with respect to the local government, without supporting numbers. Are there real examples of fee-based fire services? What would be done about fires on public lands, such as forest fires, which can spread to multiple communities, each of which are made up of numerous neighborhoods/houses, each with different competing fire services? I don't see how that model would work in this situation. The same way medical services work in remote locations, by volunteer paid services. I just finished reading a fiction book for example that described a paid "air ambulance" service in the Australian Outback. Basically every member of every community paid a subscription to the company and with that subscription they were then allowed to use the service if they needed med assistance. It's almost like a form of insurance. Or through insurance. Many times for risky events, for which people buy insurance, the insurance company funds some mechanism to reduce the risk and then passes that cost onto the consumers in their premiums. Also, realize that local govt is probably the mos innocuous examples of these, because they almost mimic what a private system would do. That is they collect money in respect to the costs, and pay out the costs directly for services. That is basically what I was getting at. We watch Dagny get stuck in various situations, ask the question "What Would Ayn Do?", and Dagny's response is the answer to that question. The problem is that Rand has full control of the situation, so it may not be realistic - that was the source of my concern with the apparent omission of certain details, such as how Dagny can simultaneously not care about others' opinions of her, but then put on makeup, buy expensive clothes, get her hair... did..., etc. Yeah, but trying to infer the philophical ideas from the details is difficult once you realize how expansive and integrated the philosophy is. Best to enjoy it, and then go get the Romantic Manifesto if you want to understand the specific detailed aspects of her esthetic. For instance already you're making some key mistakes, that apply to ethics, the psychology of love, etc in your analysis. Dagny does care about other's opinions of her, but whom? Which others? How does her own opinion of her self (i.e. of her self esteem) impact her desire to be beautiful? Who does she want to be beautiful for? Why? See if you assume that the only reason that people put on make up because they care what everyone thinks of them, then you've already made a philosophical error, and it won't make sense to you. Even Galt's speech doesn't go to that level of detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) As to your question about make-up, I think Tara Smith (a kind of St Paul to Objectivism, much like Peikoff and the rest of the ARI) answers this perfectly in 'The Virtuous Egoist': "People do not not live under a tacit agreement to present themselves "as is" - unshaven, uncombed and so on - such a person is morally quite different from the person who disguises himself in order to mislead". What is important, is to remember that one 'sexes oneself up' so as to enhance the features one finds attractive, and to downplay those which one doesn't - and it is reasonably understood amongst the members of our society, that we all go through some ritual of preparation in the morning, because we want to disguise our unpleasent smells or dissheveled looks, for any number of reasons, such as to be taken seriously, to be seen as in control or even to reflect how one feels on the inside. On that last example, imagine your average hippy, or at the other end, the 'preppie' who follows fashions to its own end, just because people say it is fashionable and then ask yourself what the significance of personal beautification is: what does it say about a man's character? When thinking about this slightly more obscure applications of Objectivist philosophy, you need to bear in mind the principle of 'reasonable doubt'. Often we cannot have access to a healthy amount of data in a situation, we are not, afterall, omniscient, so we have to make a decision 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This is something I learned from Ayn Rand's essay 'Thought Control'. In this situation, it would be, 'can I reasonably doubt that people think that I actually look this good in the morning, rather than doing this on my own effort?'. Objectivism is about intentions as much as actions - as much as those intentions are tied to actions - and one must bear in mind whether one is acting in a way in which one intendeds to be honest or dishonest. Hopefully that should help you somewhat with conundrums of that kind. As for your questions about privatising publicly funded systems... well, I think you should use Google's 'Site Search' function and search around here for 'Universal Healthcare' and the like, because there are many threads which will explain this to you. Edited January 28, 2008 by Tenure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 All fire-fighting services used to be private, and there are quite a few of them still in service. That includes services that specialize in forest fires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted January 28, 2008 Report Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Greedy Capitalist beat me to it, but here's my original post anyway: I don't know that I can be made to believe that, at least with respect to the local government, without supporting numbers. Are there real examples of fee-based fire services? What would be done about fires on public lands, such as forest fires, which can spread to multiple communities, each of which are made up of numerous neighborhoods/houses, each with different competing fire services? I don't see how that model would work in this situation. The "fire department" was a private venture by insurance companies. I saw a film on it a while ago, but wikipedia has this to offer: In many western countries, fire brigades were originally created by insurance companies to safeguard the property of their policyholders. Those who bought policies were given a plaque that would be mounted in a prominent position on the structure to denote its protected status. These plaques can still be seen on some historic buildings, particularly in the United Kingdom. I think you have some confusion about economics--in a laissez faire system, there wouldn't be "public lands". All property would be privately owned and dealt with accordingly. Fire fighting is just like any other service. Edited January 28, 2008 by West Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pizzo Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 Brian, Great questions and welcome to the forum! Glad you like the books so far. I think you are ready for Rand's non-fiction where she addresses things like the topice you list out here. The Romantic Manifesto would explain to you why Rand specifically doesn't show literary characters doing such menial tasks as going to the bathroom, as well as discuss her theory of esthetics, and beauty. The short answer is: Does it really matter if she does or if she doens't? Let me ask you this. Is Dagny Taggart a beautiful woman. Does she make herself beautiful? If so, how do you know? I think if you look, you'll already see that Rand has a wonderful sense of esthetic. You just might have missed it. As to the 2nd, the answer is NO, universal healthcare is NOT moral. As to it's moral alternative, well you'll have to wait to get to Galt's speech and I think that will be answered for you. I guess it really doesn't matter if Dagny would wear makeup or any sort of thing related, but I don't really see how, someone believing the things she believes would go out of their way to create a false image to portray to others. When I say false I mean this: The makeup on your face is not what you really look like, and by putting it on you are trying to create the illusion that you look different than you do. Why would any objectivist do this, when in my understanding it violates A=A? You cannot be what you are not, you should not try to look like someone you don't look like. That is the way I see it, but if someone else has another perspective I'd be glad to hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musenji Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 (edited) Well, just to put a spin on it... I guess it really doesn't matter if Dagny would wear nice clothes or any sort of thing related, but I don't really see how, someone believing the things she believes would go out of their way to create a false image to portray to others. When I say false I mean this: The nice clothes on your body are not what you really look like, and by putting them on you are trying to create the illusion that you look different than you do. Why would any objectivist do this, when in my understanding it violates A=A? You cannot be what you are not, you should not try to dress like something you don't look like. [edit] also, read Tenure's post, #16. Edited January 29, 2008 by musenji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 (edited) do Dominique Francon and Dagny Taggart wear makeup? How about perfume? If so, for what purpose? I guess my general question is what is the Objectivist stance on personal aesthetic beauty. It's of minor concern, but has been bugging me. (caution! there may be some spoilers Brian) Well, Dagny had lipstick in her bag, because she used it to draw the sign of the dollar on the bottom of a statue of Nat Taggart. Eddie Willers saw perfume bottles and powder boxes on Dagny's dressing table. Dom was putting perfume on while at her dressing table, when Roark came in to...well you know... Andrei bought Kira French perfume and had him apply the first drop before they...well you know... As an aside, my characters do all kinds of things in my novoul, including going to the bathroom, eating, washing dishes; there is much emphasis on the domestic life for reasons that are described in my novoul. Edited January 29, 2008 by intellectualammo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 What is the alternative? Private companies providing competing emergency services for a fee? How would that work in an apartment or condo complex, where it is easy for a fire to spread from one building to another. Would company A be allowed to put out only the fire as it spreads to condos that are its clients, and leave the other condos ablaze while those owners wait for their company B service to arrive (if they even have a fire service)? Of course not! We force all the neighbors to come put the fire down, and if they don't come, we throw their ass in jail. Then, of course, we have damages to property. Solution? We force all the neighbors/town people to pay so nothing will be lost! What do you think of this solution, Brian? What would be done about fires on public lands, such as forest fires, which can spread to multiple communities, each of which are made up of numerous neighborhoods/houses, each with different competing fire services? Well, simple. We use the same approach as I described above: We force the people from a neighboring country/county/region to come put down the fire, and then we measure damages and force them to pay whatever we lost! Same solution as before, only on a larger scale. Also, what about the sick people? And the unhappy people? Well, we cannot allow such a thing to exist. Solution: We force the healthy people to work on getting a medicine, or to pay for someone who can find it. For the unhappy people we can bring entertainment teams. If no entertainment team volunteers, we threaten the neighbors to come do it, pay for someone else to do it, or go to jail. Alternatively, you can also tax everyone (throw them in jail if they refuse to pay), and then use that big pile of money to put down fires, heal the sick and give entertainment without turning to someone specific for each task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted January 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 ... If you would like to suggest a serious alternative, please let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 The makeup on your face is not what you really look like, and by putting it on you are trying to create the illusion that you look different than you do. Clearly you've never worn makeup. Makeup doesn't change your appearance unless it involves glue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 When I say false I mean this: The makeup on your face is not what you really look like, and by putting it on you are trying to create the illusion that you look different than you do. Why would any Objectivist do this, when in my understanding it violates A=A? I cannot speak for all women, but my make-up does not create something that isn't there. (Many women do wear too much and in the wrong places, and that is just inappropriate.) I'm simply and effectively enhancing what is there. I have blond hair, for example, so my eyelashes appear non existent from a short distance away. Because they are there, I apply some mascara to them. Makes it much easier to bat my eyes at a man from across a crowded room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.