Response to Intellectual Smears

[dianahsieh]

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Back in September, I received the following e-mail from some random guy "alan" in response to some promotion I was doing for the Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups:

Date: 11 September 2009 9:18:54 AM MDT

From: alan

To: Diana Hsieh

Subject: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2

Hello Diana,

I have read that the fittest survive, that the best get the most, that those who deserve more get more (sports players, CEO, etc.), but is there not a place for compassion in her teaching?  Noblese Oblige (sp.?)  Take of the least of you?  You are your brother's keeper?  Moral obligation? And the like?  Is there not a sense of greater responsibility in the Rand teaching?  If not then is anyone responsible for the pressing (planetary, national, social) needs of the moment, or is it merely me, me, me?  I get that some have been given the ability to develop their intelligence ( & have a "big" brain), but how about a "big" heart.  Would that not be crucial in these day especially?  And if we are not "balanced" like that, ie. wise & prudent, then is there any chance of human or planetary survival?  Maybe humans have a death wish individually AND collectively.  And who would want to live in a world of no love anyway?  No compassion?  No openness to the sweetness of the connectedness/oneness of life?  That WOULD be delusional, & most sad.  You'd think there'd be a lesson there. 

Ya thank?

Sincerely, A.

Here's my reply:

Date: 11 September 2009 9:44:18 AM MDT

From: Diana Hsieh

To: alan

Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2

Ayn Rand does not advocate the "survival of the fittest."  She advocates each person pursuing his own life and happiness by reason, with the voluntary, non-sacrificial cooperation of other rational people.

Compassion and kindness are part of AR's values, albeit not primary virtues.  You see them in her heros in Atlas Shrugged, and she practiced them in her own life.  In contrast -- and just as in real life -- the people who claim to be motivated by such feelings are often indifferent to the sufferings of innocent people.  Plus, kindness towards others is a very different matter than sacrificing yourself to them -- or thinking yourself obligated to "keep" them.

If you want to discuss these issues more, I'd definitely recommend that you join one of the Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, if you can.  I think you'd find much of interest in AR's views -- as opposed to these common misconceptions about them.

-- DMH

Then the conversation went downhill:

Date: 14 September 2009 12:06:28 AM MDT

From: alan

To: Diana Hsieh

Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2

Who are these people you mention that claim to be motivated by compassion & kindness & are indifferent to the suffering of innocent people.  Would they be religious fundamentalist conservative politicians who are all so keen to kill people all around the world & let them be killed & suffer in Africa?  Possibly like Hitler & the like who are elitists, which reminds me of libertarians.  The only reasonable thing to know is that very intelligent people are all so rational just like the Nazis in their zeal for a better more pure world free of racial "impurity".  And so it would be more rational to realize the folly of anything other than to follow the heart, or as I say mind your heart.  A common saying is that the mind is a terrible master, but an wonderful servant (of the heart).  The longest distance is between the head (mind) & the heart.  I ask questions to hear your response - that's all.  Many/some would follow their bliss, & advise to be in one's heart, in one's body, in the (holy) moment or present.  A common misconception is that we as people are our mind, & it is essentially worshiped.

AKG

My reply wasn't so friendly. (I decided to ignore the difference between libertarianism and Objectivism in this context, as I just didn't think it relevant.)

Date: 14 September 2009 7:49:09 AM MDT

From: Diana Hsieh

To: alan

Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2

[Gramlich]

I liked your response.

[Lucio]

You lost your temper.

He thinks objectivism is merciless, that charity is forbidden.

You may have said:

It's ok to help others if that makes you happy, and fulfills you. Objectivism tells you that it's moral to pursuit your own happiness.

(this to disarm blind negation of anything you say)

But, do you think it's ok to take money from people at gunpoint in order to "help others" ?

It's ok to slave some people if they are slaved to "help" others?

(this to make him think)

Just my opinion.