Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why Couldn't Ayn Come Up With A Better Response

Rate this topic


dadmonson

Recommended Posts

I agree with Jeffs No. 11 post. The woman was merely stating her opinion. Rand responded angrily and rudely. We can't control other people. We can, however, control our own reactions and responses. Did Rand really expect everyone to totally agree with her? Did she really think that anyone who didn't was worthless?

No, she responded less angrily and rudely than what would have been justified in that situation.

What would you have done if you sat at a talk show to discuss your ideas and some idiot basically calls you a cult leader, implicitly calling your friends and those who agree with you cultists and that you all are immature and should grow up? She was not asking any questions either, it was just pure insults.

I'm known to be very mild tempered but I would certainly have been a lot less nicer than Ayn Rand in such a situation. I think the apropriate answer is: "Shut the hell up and go f- yourself. I'm not here to deal with your poorly disguised insults". There's no way she should have let anyone get away with pissing on her like that, and i'm glad she did not. I don't think she should have held tolerance above her pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm known to be very mild tempered but I would certainly have been a lot less nicer than Ayn Rand in such a situation. I think the apropriate answer is: "Shut the hell up and go f- yourself. I'm not here to deal with your poorly disguised insults". There's no way she should have let anyone get away with pissing on her like that, and i'm glad she did not. I don't think she should have held tolerance above her pride.

Why would you respond like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I choose to ignore them. Their input would be clearly worthless to me. Insults add nothing to any discussion. Coming back with an insult of your own merely wastes your valuable brain power, energy, and time. I'm reminded of the saying, "Fight with pigs and you end up getting dirty." In my opinion (and let's all remember, I'm only expressing my opinion here), Ms. Rand missed an opportunity to expose this woman for what she really is - a brainless drone with nothing better to do with her time than attend talk shows and spout nonsense.

I trust that if it was just Ayn Rand and this woman alone, Ayn Rand would not bother. But for the sake of other rational members of the audience who have a hard time understanding this woman, Ayn Rand goes through the trouble of bringing up the issue of her improper behavior and motivation.

Agreed, but how many people take the time to consider context?

I don't see how this is relevant.

I don't see how. It would be dismissive. How many people like to be treated as if what they say isn't important? Especially (and I'm not trying to be sexist here, just using my experience) women? What's wrong with acting as if nothing at all were said when nothing at all were said?

Because something *was* said. If someone tells you in public "you're a liar and an idiot and your life's work is useless" and you say to them "I must respectfully disagree with you" (or to put the humor aside, just say " I think you are wrong") You are objectively, giving your opponent more credit than he deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you respond like this?

Because if someone makes the effort just to insult me, in public too, I can think of a large repertoire of foul language that would be entierly justified. Also I don't like dealing with such people so i'll end it right there, making sure my response is rude and unfriendly enough to make myself perfectly clear. However, not saying this would be the perfect response, but I think it somewhat illustrates the magnitude of the insults thrown at AR. I think Ayn Rand responded very well, actually better than the woman deserved(however in that context it was well done to expose her, so that the rational people in the audience would understand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I don't like dealing with such people so i'll end it right there, making sure my response is rude and unfriendly enough to make myself perfectly clear.
Do you believe that something like "I will have no further dealing with crude, irrational people like you" is friendly and unclear?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe that something like "I will have no further dealing with crude, irrational people like you" is friendly and unclear?

Nope. Do you object to the use of profanity? I don't like using it too often because it's a bit crude language, but sometimes I use it for added impact - especially towards people who are insulting in what seems a "nice" way. I admit however that in some cases I am a very simple man, and my language may in such cases reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trust that if it was just Ayn Rand and this woman alone, Ayn Rand would not bother. But for the sake of other rational members of the audience who have a hard time understanding this woman, Ayn Rand goes through the trouble of bringing up the issue of her improper behavior and motivation.

So, she did it for other members in the audience? She seemed very angry to me, like a switch had flipped.

I don't see how this is relevant.

Since very few people take context into account, very few people would understand it's a rational response. Instead, most people see it as Rand jumping down this woman's throat for, what appears to be, "only an opinion."

Because something *was* said. If someone tells you in public "you're a liar and an idiot and your life's work is useless" and you say to them "I must respectfully disagree with you" (or to put the humor aside, just say " I think you are wrong") You are objectively, giving your opponent more credit than he deserves.

Nothing of value was said; nothing that merits recognition of being worthy of taking one's time to address. What Rand showed this woman was that her opinion was important to Rand - she evoked a response. Remember in AS when Jim Taggart asked Rearden, "What do you think of me?" One of the greatest lines in literature: "I don't." Taggart asked, "Don't what?" Rearden: "I don't think of you." Taggart thinks he's important, that he deserves unearned recognition. Rearden's response is a slap in the face, "No, you don't deserve anything you haven't earned, especially recognition from me."

Rand gave this woman recognition. Her response was like, "Your opinion is important enough for me to respond to you. What's more, I'll respond with emotion rather than reason."

Because if someone makes the effort just to insult me, in public too, I can think of a large repertoire of foul language that would be entierly justified. Also I don't like dealing with such people so i'll end it right there, making sure my response is rude and unfriendly enough to make myself perfectly clear. However, not saying this would be the perfect response, but I think it somewhat illustrates the magnitude of the insults thrown at AR. I think Ayn Rand responded very well, actually better than the woman deserved(however in that context it was well done to expose her, so that the rational people in the audience would understand).

So, someone who uses their time and energy to insult you deserves some of your time and energy in reply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Remember in AS when Jim Taggart asked Rearden, "What do you think of me?" One of the greatest lines in literature: "I don't." Taggart asked, "Don't what?" Rearden: "I don't think of you." Taggart thinks he's important, that he deserves unearned recognition. Rearden's response is a slap in the face, "No, you don't deserve anything you haven't earned, especially recognition from me."

Pretty sure that's the Fountainhead, between Howard Roark and Ellsworth Toohey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, someone who uses their time and energy to insult you deserves some of your time and energy in reply?

I think it's necessary in this context. Only way of saving that time and energy to reply would be to either sit there silently for the rest of the show or leave. That would have worked fine if it was a private conversation but in this setting it's better to get rid of the annoying woman and get on with the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's necessary in this context. Only way of saving that time and energy to reply would be to either sit there silently for the rest of the show or leave. That would have worked fine if it was a private conversation but in this setting it's better to get rid of the annoying woman and get on with the show.

We're probably splitting hairs here, but I think it would've taken less time for Rand to look at Donahue and ask him if any guests have questions. IIRC, they kind of went on about this woman.

I just don't understand what she gained with her response. I think there were probably three kinds of people in that audience: 1) those who think deeply about philosophy, 2) those who don't have a lot of time to think at all about philosophy, but are rational, can spot contradictions, and will give a fair hearing to different points of view, and 3) those who are dead set against Objectivism for whatever reason. The first group, if they haven't been exposed to Objectivism already, can find their own way there and make their own decisions. This is the smallest group. The last group will never change their minds, no matter what. They might not have even heard anything about Rand or Objectivism, but they know they don't like it and don't want to hear a word she says. This is probably the second largest group, and their spokesperson insulted Rand.

The largest group, the second group, is willing to listen, but they're hearing something which is completely contrary to what they've been taught all their lives. That means it's going to be difficult to teach them, or to inspire them to teach themselves. They'd do it if what Ms. Rand says sounds interesting (which it did), and if she presents a good image of what living her philosophy means (which, I believe, she did not).

If we can't teach people about Objectivism without badgering them, insulting them, or acting self-righteous then we'll never reach any kind of critical mass. That's bad for all of us because it just means a further and further decline into philosophies of sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, except a lot of the audience didn't seem to get it.

I have a little different take on it. I think that the people in the audience that cheered this lady did get it. They understood that what they were hearing from Rand was making sense. They also understood that it was making them uncomfortable. When this lady offered a statement that conformed to their emotions they ran to her side. In other words, given the choice between their minds and their emotions, they chose emotions. Either in this interview or later when they got home they would have made this same choice the first moment that someone offered them an alternative to accepting what their mind was telling them was true. I have seen this happen many times. I felt the urge to do it myself on occasion in the early days. The only reason I did not choose emotions is that I have always had a great deal of trust in my mind. I know that many do not have this trust, so the reaction is common.

The question then comes down to, whom was Rand really trying to reach? Those who trusted their emotions more than their mind, or those in the very small minority who trusted their minds. I suggest the latter. Most of these people would not be disuaded by Rand's curt response to this evil woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing of value was said; nothing that merits recognition of being worthy of taking one's time to address.

Actually something worse was said. Something that was intended to destroy value was said. This is important. It is one thing to say that what someone says is unimportant, and if this woman had said this to Rand in private this might apply. But she said it in pubic, in a forum discussing Rand's ideas. It was specifically said with the full intent of destroying the value of Rand's ideas. To ignore it would be counterproductive considering the context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I finally did what I should've done from the start and re-watched the clip.

I was wrong. In this particular case, I think Rand handled it appropriately. She wasn't overly defensive or hostile in any way. Her response was entirely rational and I wish Donahue wouldn't have cut her off every time she was about to make an important point. For example, the woman said (in effect), "Your philosophy creates a 'me' society." ("And, by implication, that's a bad thing.) Rand replies, "Yes. What's wrong with that?" (Asking for clarification to the implication.) Donahue talks over her and never addresses it. That was the whole point of the woman's "disagreement," and being forced to answer it would've allowed Rand an opportunity to clarify and shine.

However, I'm going to stand by my original assertion that I often find Rand not the best defender of her philosophy. As Donahue says in the clip, "You have to understand that when you make comments like that you give the impression that you're intolerant." I'm not discussing whether what she says is true, or whether it's moral, or anything philosophical. I'm referencing only the impressions she leaves. When an audience hears, "You're selfish and that's bad." And they only hear part of Rand's response, they're left with the impression that Rand promotes selfishness as they understand it.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'll have to go back and watch all the interviews again. The problem with that is I'll be watching them with a different perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I'm going to stand by my original assertion that I often find Rand not the best defender of her philosophy. As Donahue says in the clip, "You have to understand that when you make comments like that you give the impression that you're intolerant." I'm not discussing whether what she says is true, or whether it's moral, or anything philosophical. I'm referencing only the impressions she leaves. When an audience hears, "You're selfish and that's bad." And they only hear part of Rand's response, they're left with the impression that Rand promotes selfishness as they understand it.

There is no way to handle a disagreement other than professionally and clearly, when it is the error of the fundamental philosophical idea that the questioner holds that creates the faulty impression. Attempting to be more palatable to a mistaken point of view, when it is that point of view that she is specifically against, is a fools errand.

She answers questions professionally, and clearly, without mincing words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Objectivism politically advocates Capitalism which doesn't mean we want an elitist society we just want everyone to be free even the geniuses and creators (not to be slaves to the 'society'). The result of true Capitalism is a meritocracy.

I don't think so...

-ocracy also -cracy [in nouns]

PGPP government by a particular sort of people or according to a particular principle:

democracy (=government by the people)

meritocracy (=government by people with the most ability)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one last point to make here (that I find important enough to make):

Thirdly, I don't care about Ms. Rand's feelings - those are hers and only she can know what information they provide her. She's supposed to be in control of her emotions, and when you're trying to convince people to be rational, that one must control their emotions, losing your cool is not the way to do it.

You seem to be suggesting some emotion/reason dichotomy: Either she thinks or she feels. It is not true. Anger does not mean a person goes nuts and attacks the nearest individual with a fist in the face. As a human, anger has a basis in a person's ideas, and resolving anger can also be done by thinking and acting according to that.

So, she did it for other members in the audience? She seemed very angry to me, like a switch had flipped.

There is no reason why someone will feel angry at some injustice being done and at the same time NOT use that anger to fight the injustice. There is no breach of rationality in using the anger. And I think this video by Ayn Rand shows it. Anger is an important emotion, that helps a person fight injustice and thus protect his values.

Sometimes, granted, anger can be a result of incorrect judgement, in which case it will interfere with one's thinking. But this is not the norm - this is an exceptional error for a rational man, who devotes his life to thinking and discovering the truth. Unless you have reason to believe you made an incorrect judgement - there is no reason to "control" anger (meaning, to suppress it), and there is no reason to walk around with a constant self-doubt that if you get angry you will lose your rationality too.

Emotions are not demons, they're useful servants.

Edited by ifatart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ifat, Kendall -

I watched this Donahue show when I was just starting my research into Objectivism. As I stated, I hadn't take the time to re-watch the show after - that was my mistake and I've since recanted my first, not fully informed, response. With what I know now about Objectivism, Ms. Rand's response doesn't strike me as hostile.

However, I think my first impression - based not only on this one little snippet, but the entire show - is important because it is the first impression of someone ignorant of Objectivism. And I wasn't totally ignorant - I had at least read AS, FH, and VoS. I have to imagine someone who doesn't understand the relationship between emotions and reason would get the same impression.

Here's my point: We can either be teachers, or not. I've engaged some Objectivists who simply jump down the throat of anyone who questions their philosophy. They act like this is some sort of elite club where if you're not smart enough you don't get in - and if they can keep enough people stupid that just means (to their mind) they're all the more intelligent and elite. These people don't help any rational, self-interested Objectivist. I'm not arguing we need to embrace ignorance, or hostility, or insults - I'm saying we need to embrace any who wish to learn. If we react with hostility, that just makes those watching/reading think, "Well, I'm certainly not going to ask any questions." That's not good. If we don't give people a reason to research Objectivism, they won't.

My first impression, as a non-Objectivist, was, "Well, she's certainly proud of herself. And a little unstable." As an Objectivist, or at least a less ignorant student, I know now why she's proud of herself, and that she's completely rational. But as a product of an altruistic upbringing, it's hard to swallow the first pill. It gets much harder the more signals contrary to my upbringing there are. We don't need to be dishonest, we don't need to turn the other cheek, we don't need to soften any messages - we just need to be able to rationally bring people to understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can either be teachers, or not.

I've engaged some Objectivists who simply jump down the throat of anyone who questions their philosophy. They act like this is some sort of elite club where if you're not smart enough you don't get in - and if they can keep enough people stupid that just means (to their mind) they're all the more intelligent and elite. These people don't help any rational, self-interested Objectivist. I'm not arguing we need to embrace ignorance, or hostility, or insults -

I'm saying we need to embrace any who wish to learn.

We don't need to be dishonest, we don't need to turn the other cheek, we don't need to soften any messages - we just need to be able to rationally bring people to understanding.

Jeff, thanks for your comment. I don't have a lot of time to respond, but I did want to at least give a few ideas back.

Your response is normal for someone who first starts to study Objectivism. One sees reason as a powerful tool, and a new philosophy that they are enthusiastic about and which one wants to see proliferated, and so wants to respond in this way. And sees any opportunity to communicate as one that they should respond to, and in any way that they think will be effective.

I don't want you to confuse Rand's response and some of the ones that you may have received. They may or may not be coming from rational principles.

What I take issue with is your statements that seem to be very unequivocal that we should be teachers, that we should engage anyone who wishes to learn, and I presume that means in any context. That sentiment is summarized in your last statement "we don't need to soften any messages - we just need to be able to rationally bring people to understanding."

Here's where I disagree. The context is crucial. It s not an obligation for any Objectivist to teach any person, nor is it true that a desire to learn will confer an ability to understand the point being made, ie confer rational processes. More importantly if you take on this mission in exactly the way that you say you should, you will fail. You will fail specifically with the people who want to learn, but as of yet haven't either the proper starting epistemological premises or rational faculty to process your message. And there is no way to "tailor" your message to reach those people. That is, there is no way to "not soften the blow, and still "rationally bring them to understanding." I could go into why this is so, but Rand has done it better. So the question is, when addressing a mixed audience, who do you address yourself to? Rand, in her book "The Art of Non-Fiction" actually provides a very nice and I think very straightforward standard for this so I'll let her speak for herself.

Whether you write for an Objectivist publication or for TV Guide, you must judge how much your audience knows. But always address yourself to the best of that audience.

A "type of audience" is an abstraction. Concretely, you will find evaders and people with dreadful psycho-epistemologies in any audience (including an Objectivist one). The cognitive level of your readers does not determine their psycho-epistemology. Children can make a more intelligent, better focused audience than professors. Therefore, do not give any consideration whatever to the possibility of bad psycho-epistemologies. Once you have projected your audience's level of knowledge, address yourself to the best, most focused mind that you can imagine in that cognitive group.

It is improper to address yourself to a faulty psycho-epistemology. Devising a rational method to address the irrational is a contradiction. If some of your readers are irrational, there are no principles by which to decide what they will choose to hear, what they will not, and what connections they will make. Neither you nor the evader can predict what he will miss and what he will integrate. That is in the nature of irrationality.

So do not psychologize. Do not make allowances for readers' mental weaknesses. For example, do not tell yourself: "I'm saying something new or antagonistic—how can I prevent their minds from closing? How can I soften the blow?" If you ask such questions, you will only paralyze your own mind by attempting the impossible. You cannot reach a mind that chooses to be closed or is so incapacitated that even if, momentarily, it wanted to integrate properly, it could not. Such a mind lacks the capacity of full focus, and is the proper concern only of a psychotherapist. In all dealings with people, you have to deal with their conscious minds.

What you're saying is that as you look at Rand she is being quite rational, but it may not appear to others that she is. Look, if she is being quite rational, she is being quite rational. Immediately attempting to modify the message based on someone's inability to see that, puts you in an impossible position. By asking yourself, how would someone irrationally misunderstand me and how do I address myself to that person to make them see reason, you set yourself up to address a million possible and arbitrary states of mind. Good luck. Address yourself to the rational in the audience, given whatever cognitive level they have, and forget those who won't see right away. So, the test is, how should Rand have addressed this woman, so that those who would pay attention to her "apperances" not her ideas would also see reason. Try to think about this a bit, and articulate what sort of mental process that is, and how that mental process is brought to reason... Good luck.

In addition, I'm not bound to "convert" people. I'm looking to change the culture, and that need not be done by changing everyone's mind, nor is it done by changing one mind at a time. Change the intellectual "culture" and society will change regardless if everyone is an Objectivist or not. Present rational arguments, in venues where rational people will be influenced by them. That's all I'm looking to do. I dont' really care about, nor am I bound to, everyone else.

You probably won't believe me, and fifteen years ago, I woudlnt' have believed me either. In fact 2 years ago when people said, you know forums are on some levels a big waste of time, and people should switch to activism, I didnt' believe it then. Today, forums like this carry little value for me, and I don't think they are a good way to affect the culture, and I'm also now convinced that they aren't really a good way to understand philosophical issues. They are a good social network, and a good way to get information about what is going on in Objectivist circles. But if you want to change the culture, or learn the philosophy better, up the game from a venue like this. (and I'm sure that senttment is now going to get a ton of disagreement, to which I'm stating up front, I will not respond.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a clarification: I am not discussion people of low cognitive ability. Children can be quite rational, and can be communciated with on that basis.

Another consideration is that this lady's comment would have been very controversial at the time. The talk shows of today might see this as a respectful question asked in a moderate tone. I would argue that this only shows the deplorable state of today's talk shows. I remember that time alhtough I was a kid (my grandfather was a Donahue devotee, and I would sometimes watched the shows with him), and I watched the entire talk show profession dissolve into sensationalism and irrationality, which is most of what passes for rational discourse on today's talk shows.

The question is provocative, and provocation (i.e. provoking someone) is not a reasonable tool of rational discourse. Today, "provocative" is seen as reasonable synonym for "dramatic" when it's not really drama at all, but mere sensationalism. That is, we like watching people try to provoke other people.

Donahue was good at stepping in and rephrasing questions to eliminate provocation, and when he did so in this case, Rand answered his query quite rationally and explained herself, which I think is what you responded to. The proper response to the lady's question, from someone who was not steeped in today's talk show mentality, would be "wow, that was rude, implying she's a cultist." To which Rand's heated response might well have seemed quite reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you want to change the culture, or learn the philosophy better, up the game from a venue like this. (and I'm sure that senttment is now going to get a ton of disagreement, to which I'm stating up front, I will not respond.)

No disagreement from me, just curiousity, so I hope you'll respond to this: :) What do you think is a good venue for activism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I would have responded to the "lady" if given enough time to think of my best comeback:

"So you're saying that you joined what you thought was my cult, but didn't find in it what you were looking for and have now moved on ... presumably to some other cult? That isn't surprising at all, since my philosophy isn't meant to be a cult; it is addressed at rational people, and those seeking to be cult members are bound to be disappointed when they discover that Objectivism requires them to be thinkers, not blind followers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the original question -- perhaps she didn't know?

It's an interesting paradox, why does a philosophy grounded in things like individualism,self-interest, rational thinking, and a focus on finding the truth in things... is inhabited by some of the most collectivist, rationalistic, and close-minded charlatans?

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...