Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does Dagny Taggart wear makeup, and other random questions

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

The intent of makeup is not to deceive or to fake reality -- it's to enhance reality. If I put on candy-apple-red lipstick, my lips might look nice in that color (enhancement), but nobody who looks at me is going to think that my lips are naturally that color. It's true that with more natural-looking colors someone who doesn't know that my lips are naturally almost the same color as my skin could think that my lips are the light pink color lipstick provides, but again, the intent is not to deceive but enhance. I know of no situation I can think of in which I would be attempting to gain a value by deceiving someone else into thinking my lips are a color they aren't (if that were a deciding factor in whether a man wanted to date me, I'd consider him too stuck on individual concretes to be worth a second date). If I had been wearing makeup when I first began dating my boyfriend (I wasn't, I actually almost never do*), I would have been forthright about it at the time, just in case that was something he cared about.

So a woman who wears makeup is not pretending to be more beautiful than she is; she is in fact making herself more beautiful, albeit on a temporary basis.

* Because I'm lazy about putting it on, not because I have anything against it philosophically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why people wear clothes, brush their hair, wear makeup, get plastic surgery, etc is not to "fake reality." As human beings, we choose the self-image we project to the world. We do this with our actions, words as well as well as our appearance. A slovenly pig does not primarily demonstrate disrespect for those he associates with, but a lack of self-respect. I think the use of makeup by women is especially appropriate because a woman's face is important to her attractiveness, and it is eminently just that women are able to project their self-image rather than just their genes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm responding to your response to Kendall (since he already made some fundamental points and I wanted to further elaborate from a slightly different angle.) Generally, Ayn Rand's fiction refers to the same reality-orientation in an implicit way via concretes that her philosophy explicates via abstractions, but I wanted to focus on a more specific aspect.

There is a reason why AR didn't include streams of superficial character details as Modernist writers tend to. That reason parallels her reason for designing her philosophy in a way that stresses hierarchy and fundamentality (as well as context). If you examine Objectivism more thoroughly and closely, then you will see her over-riding interest in the conceptual nature of knowledge. She elaborated on the value of "thinking in essentials". Her theory of knowledge stresses that conceptual identification is made via essentialization. That is, there are aspects of objects within a conceptual group which tie those group's items together by type. For example, you can take a Red Delicious apple, a Macintosh apple as well as other types of apples, and you can note the differences and similarities of the various pieces of fruit. The similarities are what you use to relate the individual pieces of fruit as being part of the apple group (among other broader groups e.g. fruit, produce, or food). (The differences are momentarily omitted....)

The fact that AR may have not have had Dagny putting on make-up at a given point in time does not indicate that Dagny had no interest in makeup or any other superficial personal aspect of herself. AR does introduce aspects of personal appearance and specific personal behaviour into her fiction, but she didn't stress those aspects when (for a given aesthetic context) they were too tangential or transient to add to the value of the book. Those aspects would end up being distractions if they were introduced in a Naturalistic way or any other non-essentialized way.

For a taste of this facet of her epistemology, see:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fundamentality.html

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/integration.html

among others....

...as against:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/naturalism.html

She did stress detail in order to increase realism, but that type of artistic elaboration is directed by the author's overall plot-theme. (You really might want to read certain chapters in _The Romantic Manifesto_ and/or _The Art of Fiction_ for relevant explanations of her aesthetic theory.)

Long story short, how Dagny ties a bow, brushes her hair, puts on makeup, etc. is important to her as a person, but those aspects of her appearance are not normally of primary importance to us i.e. the readers of her story i.e voyeurs of her world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I think that clothes are different, because they are something that society requires in order for a man to live freely. A perfect instance is portrayed in the Fountainhead when Roark says something along the lines of "I will wear their clothes because I am required to, but I will never do this." I can't remember exactly where in the book it is, but I'm sure you can remember it. You cannot walk down the street naked, because society literally would not allow you to do so. Wearing makeup and other sorts of vanity are different, in my opinion. As for wearing "nice" clothes. Would Dagny buy a business suite that was more expensive made by a name brand, if there was one that looked exactly like it made by a more "fashionable" brand? If that is not what you meant, please clarify.

And to all the other responses: I see where you're coming from, but I still disagree. To me, it simply shows that you care what other people think, enough to try and enhance your own beauty. Tell me, are you really doing it for your own sake?

Also, I would like to point out that in the Fountainhead, Roark is clearly described as not being very physically attractive. However, where in the book does it discuss him doing anything to "enhance his beauty"? He doesn't. Perhaps I am in the same boat with him, and, while I don't think that wearing makeup is morally wrong, I simply see it as completely pointless. I don't fix my hair, but I keep it well groomed, and that's because I like being clean. It has nothing to do with beauty. (since I'm not a woman that is really the only parallel I can think of)

Edited by Jon Pizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would like to suggest a serious alternative, please let me know.

I don't want to suggest an alternative, because I don't consider burning apartments, sick, unhappy people to be the primacy of what needs to be saved. I see happy, healthy people as the thing that needs to be protected. And those cannot be protected by forcing them to give up on their health and happiness in favor of the misfortunate ones.

See, so essentially, I do not consider what you presented a problem at all. A burning apartment by itself is not a problem that needs be solved by the entirety of society. It may be a problem of a single individual, in which case it is a different problem than what you presented.

"I am sick, now it is your responsibility to save me, come up with a solution" contains an invalid assumption regarding the responsibility.

If someone said the same thing to you (the sentence in quotes a line above), what would be your reply? (I'm asking seriously)

Suppose he came to you and said "Brian, I am sick. My apartment got burned to the ground. It is your responsibility to save me. What are you going to do about this problem?" what would you answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Dagny buy a business suite that was more expensive made by a name brand, if there was one that looked exactly like it made by a more "fashionable" brand? If that is not what you meant, please clarify.

What I mean by "nice" is the actual appearance of the suit--not who made it. Why does she feel the need to dress up nicely? Why did she dress up in a fantastic dress to go to a party, when she really could've just worn a sweater and jeans, which would've been more comfortable?

And to all the other responses: I see where you're coming from, but I still disagree. To me, it simply shows that you care what other people think, enough to try and enhance your own beauty. Tell me, are you really doing it for your own sake?

Someone else already mentioned that it's okay to care what the people you like think of you, and to dress up or make up nicely for them. The selfless thing is to doll up for people you know you don't like or respect, because you care what they think.

while I don't think that wearing makeup is morally wrong, I simply see it as completely pointless.

How about it being a celebration of a person's beauty, by accentuating the beautiful aspects of their face? It seems, to me, to go along with Romanticism vs. Naturalism...the naturalist point of view being that it's "dishonest" in the same way that a romantic painting is "unrealistic". Putting makeup on, done well, is like a celebration of one's face "as it might be and ought to be".

Man, I can see how that idea would offend a hell of a lot of people. But then, you could also ask: why do ladies shave their legs and under their arms?

[edit] reading that "might be and ought to be" bit even runs a little sour for me, so I want to say one more thing: I think it's possible for women to put makeup on because they think they have to, in order to be valuable, but I think it's also possible for them to do it simply as a celebration and outward statement of their value.

Edited by musenji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, so essentially, I do not consider what you presented a problem at all. A burning apartment by itself is not a problem that needs be solved by the entirety of society. It may be a problem of a single individual, in which case it is a different problem than what you presented.

Nice post!

So where's the limit? Get rid of the fire service, emergency services, public schools, public libraries, public roads, etc. Get rid of government altogether? We all pay a little toward those services so that we all get the benefits from them. I think the thing I'm finding hardest to believe is that it would be cheaper to pay for a private fire service than for my town to have its own fire service, paid for through taxes. The same is true for a 911 service, libraries, roads, etc. I'm all for getting rid of bloated federal services supported simply so that politicians can get reelected, but I'm not sure the solution works on the smaller (ie more local) scale.

<rambling>

It might not be possible to gradually move the country in the direction you're wanting, to where everyone sees things the way you do. And until we reach that goal, politicians are going to get elected by people who want to be cradled, and laws will be made to support that. Religion is a similar disease.

</rambling>

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it simply shows that you care what other people think, enough to try and enhance your own beauty. Tell me, are you really doing it for your own sake?

Tell me, if you felt like vomiting every time you looked into the mirror, wouldn't that affect your self-esteem at least a bit ?

Also, I would like to point out that in the Fountainhead, Roark is clearly described as not being very physically attractive.

Could you provide part and chapter numbers for that please?

I don't think that wearing makeup is morally wrong, I simply see it as completely pointless.

Doing something completely pointless IS morally wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where's the limit? Get rid of the fire service, emergency services, public schools, public libraries, public roads, etc.

As I said, don't get rid of them, just don't have the government run them. You still haven't seem to have gotten rid of the premise that a fire service (etc.) is necessarily a government program. It has been shown to you in several different posts how it needn't be, and actually originally wasn't, a government program.

In my home country, Hungary, it used to be that all major businesses were run by the government, because we were a Communist country. Even the shoe stores were operated by the government. They aren't now--and guess what, we can still buy shoes, because the shoe stores are still there, only they aren't run by the government anymore. And we can actually afford many more shoes (and laptops, and cars, and homes) than we could under Communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the thing I'm finding hardest to believe is that it would be cheaper to pay for a private fire service than for my town to have its own fire service, paid for through taxes. The same is true for a 911 service, libraries, roads, etc.
Why do you doubt that? That is to say, if you took one of those departments as they are today and privatized them, why do you think costs would go up?

I'll grant you this: in the case of something like the library, revenues may fall. The library is being paid for by forced taxation of many people who do not use it at all. In my town a few hundred dollars of each year's local tax goes toward the library. Perhaps many people won't see that much value and would not pay if it were private. However, that would simply mean that libraries are a bad idea than only exist because some citizens are forced to subsidize others. If the forced subsidy portion is factored out, it would still be cheaper if run by a for-profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean by "nice" is the actual appearance of the suit--not who made it. Why does she feel the need to dress up nicely? Why did she dress up in a fantastic dress to go to a party, when she really could've just worn a sweater and jeans, which would've been more comfortable?

Someone else already mentioned that it's okay to care what the people you like think of you, and to dress up or make up nicely for them. The selfless thing is to doll up for people you know you don't like or respect, because you care what they think.

How about it being a celebration of a person's beauty, by accentuating the beautiful aspects of their face? It seems, to me, to go along with Romanticism vs. Naturalism...the naturalist point of view being that it's "dishonest" in the same way that a romantic painting is "unrealistic". Putting makeup on, done well, is like a celebration of one's face "as it might be and ought to be".

Man, I can see how that idea would offend a hell of a lot of people. But then, you could also ask: why do ladies shave their legs and under their arms?

[edit] reading that "might be and ought to be" bit even runs a little sour for me, so I want to say one more thing: I think it's possible for women to put makeup on because they think they have to, in order to be valuable, but I think it's also possible for them to do it simply as a celebration and outward statement of their value.

Very good point, one which I hadn't considered yet. So I have learned something. If a woman is doing it for the reasons you stated, then I see no problem with it whatsoever. I wouldn't do it, but that has nothing to do with being against it.

I think that the problem is, like you said, most women don't do it for honorable reasons, they do it because they are self conscious and care too much about their physical appearance in the eyes of others.

Capitalism Forever: If I looked into the mirror every day, what reason would there be for me to feel like vomiting? Because I was "ugly"? Why should it matter, or affect my self esteem? I don't get my self esteem from anything about my looks.

I do concede that I may have been mistaken about how Rand described Roark in the Fountainhead, however, at the party in Pt. II, Chapter 6, one of the guests asks miss Francon if she is joking when she describes Roark as good looking. Either way, never in a million years could I see him doing anything to enhance his looks, whether he was horribly "ugly" or terribly "good" looking.

Edited by Jon Pizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you doubt that? That is to say, if you took one of those departments as they are today and privatized them, why do you think costs would go up?

I'll grant you this: in the case of something like the library, revenues may fall. The library is being paid for by forced taxation of many people who do not use it at all. In my town a few hundred dollars of each year's local tax goes toward the library. Perhaps many people won't see that much value and would not pay if it were private. However, that would simply mean that libraries are a bad idea than only exist because some citizens are forced to subsidize others. If the forced subsidy portion is factored out, it would still be cheaper if run by a for-profit.

I think what he was trying to get out (judging from his decision to include "my town") is that maybe he lives in a small town where he maybe considers a private fire service to be impractical. I'm not sure exactly how fire departments are subsidized, but I would imagine that the taxes of citizens of a populated neighboring town subsidize fire departments in smaller towns that have small tax bases. It's not a good point in my opinion, but that is what he meant I think. I believe Brian is mistaken in viewing this question under the assumption that a private fire department will necessarily be cheaper than a public one; it most likely would be, but this is not the primary reason why fire departments should be private.

To address the library question quickly: I believe the continued existence of libraries in many historic empires has shown them to be of value to most people. Remember though that the existence of a great many libraries in this country can be attributed to Andrew Carnegie, who used his funds to establish them in many communities. Of course this is fine and proper in a laissez-faire society. In summation there is no reason to believe that libraries could not operate when they are either run privately for profit or are funded by philanthropy, or possibly some combination thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would that work in an apartment or condo complex, where it is easy for a fire to spread from one building to another.

Most probably this could be handled in a contractual fee similar to HOA's. When purchasing the property from the developer, as an informed and intelligent purchaser of the property, you would make sure that the building was protected by insurance. Failure to pay by any particular owner would end with a lien on their property. When people buy houses now they usually look carefully into access to buses, schools, floodplains, indoor water, heat etc. So I have no doubt that they would also make sure they had access to fire protection if it were not a government program.

Incidentally neighborhood roads could be handled in much the same way. Some yearly fee for maintenance attached to the contract could be used to a)insure that roads existed and b)No one could "surround your house with a road which they owned then not allow you to use it," or any of that nonsense. With some creative financing, it would be pretty easy to add some fee to the purchase of the house which was then conservatively invested with the yields being used for maintenance. With good investing, they might eventually become "free" on paper.

The important thing with this sort of thing is to think in principle. What problem exists? And then, how can we fix it without shoving a gun in someone's face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I would like to point out that in the Fountainhead, Roark is clearly described as not being very physically attractive. However, where in the book does it discuss him doing anything to "enhance his beauty"? He doesn't.

Roark is like a painting which brings the concept of an ideal man to the perceptual level . It serves a psycho-epistemological function of integration. It is completely inappropriate to be deriving (aside from fundamentals) what is and is not a proper behavior in reality based on what fictional characters did or did not do in a novel.

Nobody should concern themselves what Roark did or would do - instead the question is what the reality dictates.

And to all the other responses: I see where you're coming from, but I still disagree. To me, it simply shows that you care what other people think, enough to try and enhance your own beauty.

Living in a society, having to trade with others, makes is necessary for us to care what others think of us to some extend. What physical image we chose to project to the world is significant, like it or not. Looking attractive to the opposite sex (their opinion matters!) obviously is also a value in the realm of romantic relationships.

What is bad is when other's opinion becomes our standard of value (including what we think of ourselves). As long as it is not - it is a value to care about our physical image and it is a value to make effort and try to maximize on what nature gave us.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get my self esteem from anything about my looks.

Your appearance reflects who you are, so saying that you don't get your self-esteem from anything about your looks amounts to saying that you don't get your self-esteem from anything related to who you are. But if your self--your identity--is not the proper source of your self-esteem, may I ask what else it could be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your appearance reflects who you are, so saying that you don't get your self-esteem from anything about your looks amounts to saying that you don't get your self-esteem from anything related to who you are. But if your self--your identity--is not the proper source of your self-esteem, may I ask what else it could be?

I take him to be differentiating(perhaps too strongly) between self-esteem derived from character and self-esteem derived from vanity or other shallow characteristics.

While taking care of myself hygienically and health-wise is important, and liking how I look(to myself) is fairly connected to self esteem, in the sense that I identify what I see in the mirror with everything that I am, it is not causal in the way that I think Jon is viewing it. I do not esteem myself highly because of how I look. Rather, because I esteem myself highly, I like how I look and spend some time to maintain it.

The problem with vanity comes from this reversal of cause and effect which later manifests itself in too much time spent trying to maintain your appearance. Which, sadly, is of paramount importance if it is the primary source of self-esteem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

What you choose to wear is a reflection of your aesthetic values.

I absolutely love Dagnys sense of style. I think her style reflects her values. I hope I can afford to dress like her when I have a career.

How can you dress like something you don't look like? Certain clothes can enhance your bodies virtues and flaws. Why choose the ones that enhance your flaws? Seems like an Objectivist would want to optimize their appearance as much as possible rather than detract from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main point is this: I disagree with anyone relying on how they look for any sort of confidence or self esteem, or even approval from others. I think that one's mind/principles is the soul most important aspect of how they should be judged. I do not do anything to enhance my appearance, other than personal grooming. However, what most of you seem to be saying is this: in reality, at least for an objectivist, it is the opposite. You are not relying on your looks for your self esteem, but your looks are a product of your self esteem, or what you want to portray. All I'm saying is that for me at least, I don't place much emphasis on aesthetics when it comes to my own appearance. Why? because I don't care to portray anything to anyone. I guess it has to do with how I act socially. I don't really have more than a few people of value in my life, and that's okay with me.

Aequalsa put it perhaps more directly than I could have:

"I take him to be differentiating(perhaps too strongly) between self-esteem derived from character and self-esteem derived from vanity or other shallow characteristics.

While taking care of myself hygienically and health-wise is important, and liking how I look(to myself) is fairly connected to self esteem, in the sense that I identify what I see in the mirror with everything that I am, it is not causal in the way that I think Jon is viewing it. I do not esteem myself highly because of how I look. Rather, because I esteem myself highly, I like how I look and spend some time to maintain it.

The problem with vanity comes from this reversal of cause and effect which later manifests itself in too much time spent trying to maintain your appearance. Which, sadly, is of paramount importance if it is the primary source of self-esteem."

That is the point I was trying to make.

Edited by Jon Pizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My looks reflect my self esteem.

I'm gonna have to go back to what Sophia said in her post. I have made several life changing decisions this past year and I am feeling quite good about myself and my life. Since then, I notice that I want to look nice. I've been wearing make-up again, I went down another pant size so I went and bought new jeans, I got a new hairstyle...it's all part of the new and improved me. Why should I go around looking like the unhappy person I was before? I'm thinking better, feeling better AND looking better. I am not putting on any false pretenses, I just feel good and my looks reflect that.

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where's the limit? Get rid of the fire service, emergency services, public schools, public libraries, public roads, etc. Get rid of government altogether? We all pay a little toward those services so that we all get the benefits from them. I think the thing I'm finding hardest to believe is that it would be cheaper to pay for a private fire service than for my town to have its own fire service, paid for through taxes.

Well, using stolen money does make it cheaper for some people to use services.

You seem to assume that the price of a service to the average Joe is the main criterion to decide of the method in which this service will be provided to Joe. According to this logic, if Joe can get water more cheaply by somehow forcing his rich neighbor to pay for it, then that is the preferable method.

Your approach focuses on the outcome and ignores the source.

Suppose you have a bush of berries hanging over the abyss. You can ignore the source that allows you to enjoy berries and try to step into the abyss to grab berries. Surely the shortest way to have them in your hands. This would be the same as saying that having cheaper services is good even if force is involved (while force goes against that which allows wealth to begin with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...