Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The elitist myth & why it's damning to Objectivism.

Rate this topic


Dominique

Recommended Posts

I understand that Dagny and Galt might be more naturally gifted and so might be better suited to say *mayor of the Gulch* while Eddie might have been *janitor of the Gulch* or what have you, but I felt/feel that there was a dividing line between whom was admitted and who was not and I thought/think that the criteria for drawing that line is moral *goodness* and ambition rather than natural talent or supremecy.

It matters to me because it seems to symbolize a huge difference in focus and ideology.

I think I understand now Sarah, you thought that I and others were implying that some people have more "power" or higher rank in an rational society because they are naturally gifted? No, no, no. :) I can't speak for anybody else here, but that's not at all what I meant, that would almost me "Nazi-ish" or something like that. I do mean ambition and drive, a man can have all the brains and "natural talent" in the world but he still has to *choose* to do something with it, he has to choose production, virtue, and morality it's not intrinsic. He has to choose to become an "elite", it's not his "destiny" because of random attributes at birth. It's also why I like you, because I have noticed those attributes in the way you present yourself to the world. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When you say "naturally gifted," are you suggesting that you believe some people are *born* with inate talents or abilities, while others are destined to mediocrity?  Ayn Rand never advocated that, and to me..  if any premises are likely to lead to elitism, it would be those.  But Ayn Rand went to great lenghts to show that great men are self made, and arive at greatness through their choices and actions. 

Yeah, that is what I was saying :)

The conversation is about the difference between an *Eddie* and a *Dagny* .

I don't think Eddie made any more wrong actions or choices than Dagny. The topic came up when I asked why Eddie was excluded from the Gulch. Some people said the Gulch wasn't a place for *all* good people but only for the *best*. Some people said Eddie refused to go and was invited and would have been welcome. I disagreed with the former, hence this thread.

I think I understand now Sarah, you thought that I and others were implying that some people have more "power" or higher rank in an rational society because they are naturally gifted? No, no, no. ;) I can't speak for anybody else here, but that's not at all what I meant, that would almost me "Nazi-ish" or something like that. I do mean ambition and drive, a man can have all the brains and "natural talent" in the world but he still has to *choose* to do something with it, he has to choose production, virtue, and morality it's not intrinsic. He has to choose to become an "elite", it's not his "destiny" because of random attributes at birth. It's also why I like you, because I have noticed those attributes in the way you present yourself to the world. :)

Right! Absolutely, And thank you! :D

I was merely disagreeing with some people's opinions that while possibly well-meaning were leading to this idea. It's been a while now so I don't know if I misinterpreted everyone's statements, or if some people do hold that opinion, but I wanted to flush it out if they did and see where the premises were set. Unfortunately it died out on me, but I do feel I learned something from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question (to join in) is, Is someone, who has more "natural talent" than the next, who has maxed his potential, better than the person who has less "natural talent," yet still maxed his potential? I see this as being, somewhat, the question. I apologize if I'm wrong, although the question still stands.

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question (to join in) is, Is someone, who has more "natural talent" than the next, who has maxed his potential, better than the person who has less "natural talent," yet still maxed his potential?  I see this as being, somewhat, the question.  I apologize if I'm wrong, although the question still stands.

My response (to join in) is no. Objectivism holds that the moral is the chosen. No moral judgment can be based on factors outside one's choice. The man of lesser ability, to the extent that such a thing is outside his control, can be just as moral as the man of greater ability.

Eddie was fully as moral as Dagny, just not nearly as competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response (to join in) is no. Objectivism holds that the moral is the chosen. No moral judgment can be based on factors outside one's choice. The man of lesser ability, to the extent that such a thing is outside his control, can be just as moral as the man of greater ability.

Eddie was fully as moral as Dagny, just not nearly as competent.

How are you defining competent? Eddie was very good at his job. I would define that as competent. I think this goes back to Dominque's statement about structural systems. I.e. in the Army (or any military service) an officer is only as good as his subordinates and so on down the line. For me to be an effective leader, I need to have competent soldiers beneath me. HOWEVER, the best NCO (non-commissioned officer, for non-military) may not be the best officer, and vice versa. Same with idea with Hank Rearden to his workers. Rearden would not have been sucessful without competent people to do the work. Dagny, it could be implied, would not have been successful without Eddie (a competent person) to support her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you defining competent?  Eddie was very good at his job.  I would define that as competent.  I think this goes back to Dominque's statement about structural systems.  I.e. in the Army (or any military service) an officer is only as good as his subordinates and so on down the line.  For me to be an effective leader, I need to have competent soldiers beneath me.  HOWEVER, the best NCO (non-commissioned officer, for non-military) may not be the best officer, and vice versa.  Same with idea with Hank Rearden to his workers.  Rearden would not have been sucessful without competent people to do the work.  Dagny, it could be implied, would not have been successful without Eddie (a competent person) to support her.

Since you are now discussing the nature of competence, I take it you agree with what I said about the moral status of people with differing levels of ability.

The Encarta Online Dictionary defines competent as "having enough skill or ability to do something". While Eddie was competent to do his job, he could not do Dagny's, at least not the way Dagny did it. Dagny, however, could easily do Eddie's job. That is why I say Dagny was more competent.

Likewise with Rearden. He could (potentially) do all of the jobs of those below him, while few of them could do what he did. I say "potentially", because some of those jobs may require specialized, scientific training that Reardan may not have possessed, but presumably could acquire if he so chose.

However, I agree that it is important to have competent people below the leader. Very few enterprises of any size can be successful with only one competent person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you are now discussing the nature of competence, I take it you agree with what I said about the moral status of people with differing levels of ability.

Likewise with Rearden.  He could (potentially) do all of the jobs of those below him, while few of them could do what he did.  I say "potentially", because some of those jobs may require specialized, scientific training that Reardan may not have possessed, but presumably could acquire if he so chose.

Okay, Thanks for the clarification. And, yes, I agree.

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question (to join in) is, Is someone, who has more "natural talent" than the next, who has maxed his potential, better than the person who has less "natural talent," yet still maxed his potential?  I see this as being, somewhat, the question.  I apologize if I'm wrong, although the question still stands.

I would say one could achieve more, but they are equally moral and equally *good* and deserving of respect and admiration. The only inequality might be the quantity of achievements, but for each it would be their maximum potential and as such even out in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dominique says,

I would say one could achieve more, but they are equally moral and equally *good* and deserving of respect and admiration.
Aristotle replies,

Now the man is thought to be heroic if he thinks himself worthy of great things, and is worthy of them; on the other hand, he who thinks himself worthy of great things, being unworthy of them is vain; and he who thinks himself worthy of less than he is really worth of, is unduly humble. The heroic man, then is an extreme in respect of the greatness of his claims, but a mean in respect to his rightness of them; for he claims what is in accordance with his merits, while the others go to excess or fall short.

He who is worthy of little and thinks himself worthy of little is temperate, but not heroic; for heroic stature implies greatness, as beauty implies a good-sized body, and little people may be neat and well-proportioned but cannot be beautiful.

Edited by Free Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... one could achieve more, but they are equally moral and equally *good* and deserving of respect and admiration.

I respect and admire people for various reasons.

If I see a ditch-digger who takes pride in digging the perfect ditch, I could admire his sense of purpose and pride, but I really don't admire the great ditch he dug. On the other hand, I might admire the work of a sculptor of mixed premises while realizing that he has flaws in his character.

I might admire an athelete's perseverence and desire to acheive, even though I personally find her purpose rather befuddling. (e.g. Climbing K2 is an optional value that I personally cannot relate to, but I understand that someone might want it, I understand that it is not irrational to do so, and I admire what it takes to acheive it.)

Further, if we are attempting to assess the value of people, I will ask the question that Ayn Rand asked about values: "of value to whom". Values assumes a valuer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect and admire people for various reasons.

[..]

Further, if we are attempting to assess the value of people, I will ask the question that Ayn Rand asked about values: "of value to whom". Values assumes a valuer.

I was referring to moral value. They would be equally moral and deserving of respect and admiration for their moral fortitude and upright-ness although they may actually have achieving different particulars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I think that Eddie Willers represented a regular guy who had not read "Atlas Shrugged."  He was put into the story line as a warning of what would happen to those who, while "walking the walk,"  didn't internalize and act on the real message of the book.

He seemed to not really *get it*. I think he did his best to internalize it and to act on it as well, but fell short, or got worn down (and out) before he could. Essentially, in the end, he had become stuck. He wanted to do what was right, but didn't seem to go much deeper than that-just by gut.

At least that's what I finally came up with. I'm in the process of re-reading it now though so I'm *testing the hypothesis*. :sorcerer:

Welcome to the forum by the way ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The word "Aristocracy" implies a "cracy," implies a coercive rule. That is a violation of NIOF. Rand's politics were anti-coercive, and hence there would be no aristocrats. No one can coerce.

Of course, people are differing in their skills and talents and as a result they will receive different levels of remuneration. People are different so variance in income is natural. This doesnt imply 'supermen' and 'lesser men.' I happen to be smarter than many people I know, but I am their equal in 'heirarchical' terms, and ethically we are all ends in ourselves. In short, Rand was not an economic egalitarian, but an ethical egalitarian (i.e. people get treated equally under law), and to quote Hayek, "it is only because people are unequal can we treat them equally."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "Aristocracy" implies a "cracy," implies a coercive rule. That is a violation of NIOF. Rand's politics were anti-coercive, and hence there would be no aristocrats. No one can coerce.

If government is prohibited by its constitution from initiating force, an aristocracy need not be any more coercive than a democracy. Indeed, since politicians in democracies tend to reward votes with government handouts, an aristocracy would be less likely to evolve into socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If government is prohibited by its constitution from initiating force, an aristocracy need not be any more coercive than a democracy.  Indeed, since politicians in democracies tend to reward votes with government handouts, an aristocracy would be less likely to evolve into socialism.

But if a government cannot initiate force, it cannot be seen as coercive or a ruler. Aristocracy means an elite are allowed to coerce the non-elite. An Objectivist government would be a guardian of non-coercion, not coercive in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"cracy" does not necessarily imply a coercive rule. What gave you that idea? The word "aristocracy" comes from two Greek words: "aristos" = best men, and "kratos" = rule. This is different from tyrant, someone who seizes the government unconstitutionally, and holds his power without legitimacy. In the Ancient Greek world, the world in which words like "aristocracy" and "democracy" first appeared, both aristocracy and democracy were viewed as legitimate, even if different, forms of government, and both were different from tyranny or despotism.

If anything, it is the oligarchy ("oligou" = few "archos" = another word for rule, or for being first) that was closer to a concept coercive government, because the ruling elite was artifically limited to a select few, usually the rich, and all others were excluded. In something like aristocracy, anyone had the capacity to achieve a position of power, provided they fitted certain requirements.

Anyway this isn't a post on history here, but basically what I'm trying to say is that "cracy" does not automatically entail coercive rule.

Edited by Free Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just wanted to add this quote from Ayn Rand from "An Untitled Letter" in Philosophy: Who Needs It

"Meritocracy" is an old anti-concept and one of the most contemptible package-deals. By means of nothing more than its last five letters, that word obliterates the difference between mind and force: it equates men of ability with political rulers, and the power of their creative achievements with political power. There is no difference, the word suggests, between freedom and tyranny: an "aristrocracy" is tyranny by a politically established elite, a "democracy" is tyranny by the majority—and when a government protects individual rights, the result is tyranny by the talent or "merit" (and since "to merit" means "to deserve," a free society is ruled by the tyranny of justice)."

That's all. Don't mind me. :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Objectivism isn't elitist. It believes that good people should just get their fair share, i.e. everything they produced. That's all.

About Eddie and Galt:

I believe Eddie was outside to show how an honest person feels when the world around him perishes. It was a plot issue, I guess.

Galt had truck drivers and children in his gulch. It wasn't elitism.

He just wanted to stop the motor of the world and that meant the most productive people. He could even have left Dagny out there and the world would have still perished. What use is transportation if nothing is produced anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its been a while since ive last read AS so correct me if im wrong but when Rearden dissapears doesnt he take his company doctor and secretary (ms. ives i think it was) as well? they get in, eddie doesnt? that always bugged me. theyre not exactly world movers, just those who understand and live the philosophy (like ragnars movie star wife). i think people often disregard the impotence of a society with "too many chiefs and not enough indians."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think people often disregard the impotence of a society with "too many chiefs and not enough indians."

If what you mean is that society needs stupid people then I must object.

No one needs stupid people. Stupid people need others.

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...