An Interesting Quote

[brit2006]

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.--Robert A. Heinlein

I saw this on the quote section on the top of this website. This can't be what Objectivism espouses, surely?

[Eternal]

I saw this on the quote section on the top of this website. This can't be what Objectivism espouses, surely?

Here's a counter-quote:

"Jack of all trades, master of none."

[Daedalus]

I saw this on the quote section on the top of this website. This can't be what Objectivism espouses, surely?

Anyone who knows anything about the free market and the division of labor can see that Heinlein is dead wrong here. But let's not rush to judgment. Heinlein was a writer of fiction, and his quote might make more sense in the context of the story. Futhermore, characters in novels don't always say exactly what the author believes.

[brit2006]

Specialization is for insects.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

Do these two quotes not have similar meanings?

[Inspector]

I don't see what's wrong with the quote. I don't interpret it as an attack on the division of labor. He doesn't mean that you shouldn't specialize in your career, but rather he is echoing part of the Greek ideal of manliness; that a man should be able to handle what life throws at him and not be helpless to perform the activities his life requires.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Inspector

[Daedalus]

I don't see what's wrong with the quote. I don't interpret it as an attack on the division of labor. He doesn't mean that you shouldn't specialize in your career, but rather he is echoing part of the Greek ideal of manliness; that a man should be able to handle what life throws at him and not be helpless to perform the activities his life requires.

The only objectionable part is the final sentence: "Specialization is for insects." The doctor that fixed my hernia is a friend of mine. I can tell you he knows only two subjects really well: surgery and golf. Thank heavens for "insects" like him.

[Spano]

I could see the interpretation that Heinlein is simply advocating human efficacy, of the ability to handle a variety of tasks well. But that last sentence, which seems to disparage specialization, makes me skeptical of that. Of course, being able to do a lot of things well is a virtue, but specializing in one thing at the expense of another is certainly no vice - hence the division of labor. The quote also includes things that do require specialized knowledge, like planning invasions and programming computers, which makes it even more confusing as to what the last sentence is supposed to mean.

In a way, it reminds me something i read about Marx's ideal life of the working man, who would (paraphrasing) dig ditches in the day and criticize poetry at night, which I remember as being opposition to the division of labor.

[Edit: found the Marx quote:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."]

Edited February 23, 2006 by Spano

[Daedalus]

Marx quote:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."

Marx and Engel's absurd promised land was nicely skewered by A. Gray:

"That each individual should have the opportunity of developing all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions, is a dream which will cheer the vision only of the simple-minded, oblivious of the restrictions imposed by the narrow limits of human life. For life is a series of acts of choice, and each choice is at the same time a renunciation....

"Even the inhabitant of Engels' future fairyland will have to decide sooner or later whether he wishes to be Archbishop of Canterbury or First Sea Lord, whether he should seek to excel as a violinist or as a pugilist, whether he should elect to know all about Chinese literature or about the hidden pages in the life of the mackerel." (A. Gray,

The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin

, London, 1946, p. 385)

[iouswuoibev]

Marx and Engel's absurd promised land was nicely skewered by A. Gray:

"That each individual should have the opportunity of developing all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions, is a dream which will cheer the vision only of the simple-minded, oblivious of the restrictions imposed by the narrow limits of human life. For life is a series of acts of choice, and each choice is at the same time a renunciation....

I like that.

[brit2006]

I agree, the Heinlein quote is more akin to Marxism than Objectivism. So why is it being quoted on this website?

Or have I misinterpeted the quote? If so, how do you explain "Specialization is for insects"?

[softwareNerd]

... how do you explain "Specialization is for insects"?

You explain it by realizing that the author would tell you that he is all for a world where people specialize in brain surgery, and that he did want his quote to imply that he didn't. It is just a few sentences.

Someone might say, in a particular context, "give me the sounds of birds and a waterfall and forget the noisy city". A little quote like that does not mean he is a man-hater who wants to become a hermit.

Now, I have not read this particular author, so I have no idea what his real views are, but that quote is insufficient to go on. One can just as easily assume he meant it as a colorful way of saying that people should have an integrated view of the world and enjoy all the things the world has to offer.

Rather than saying someone should not be a specialized philosopher, he might mean it's nice to see a philosopher who does not merely live in a castle in his mind, but can also make the best burgers in the world.

Edited February 23, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Daedalus]

After a little Googling, I discovered the quote is from Heinlein's novel Time Enough for Love which details the exploits of one Lazarus Long, a man endowed with an extremely long life span and penchant for crusty aphorisms. As I dimly recall from my reading of it 20 years ago, the hero spends lengthy periods alone in a spacecraft -- in which case having a wide range of talents would be essential for survival and sanity.

I'm still not sure that the quote has any special relevance to Objectivists or those of us who don't live at a great distance from civilization or expect to live several hundred years.

[Inspector]

You explain it by realizing that the author would tell you that he is all for a world where people specialize in brain surgery, and that he did want his quote to imply that he didn't. It is just a few sentences.

Yes, seriously!

I have read Heinlein, and whatever his shortcomings, he does not deserve the kind of treatment he is getting in this thread.

As I said, what Heinlein is advocating is the Greek ideal of the self-sufficient man... an ideal later expanded upon and completed by Ayn Rand's virtue of Independence. His point is that it is an essential ingredient of a human being (and, especially, masculinity) to be able to interact well and deal with the whole of reality, not just some narrow specialty.

It’s all well and good that Daedalus’ doctor is very good at what he does. But I think a person is missing something essential if all they are good at is medicine and golf. I don’t think it’s even possible to be good at medicine if all you’re good at is medicine.

How about communicating with other people? All the medical knowledge in the world won’t do any good if he can’t effectively tell his staff what needs to be done. What about getting to work? Can he drive? How about personal finances? Can he stay in business if he goes personally bankrupt? What if there’s a fire? Can he operate a telephone to call for help? Does he even know how to get out of the building, or does he become a blubbering wreck, unable to move? How about his patients: does he understand that they are human beings, with lives and needs beyond immediate medical treatment? Can he select a proper treatment based on these factors, or are his patients just pieces of meat to him?

Again, this is NOT an attack on the division of labor society. It is impossible for a man to cultivate all of the possible skills he could learn and it would be futile to try. But there is something just… not… manly about a person who is utterly dependant on others to perform even the most basic of daily tasks. Are you familiar with Mr. Burns from The Simpsons?

[Daedalus]

Again, this is NOT an attack on the division of labor society. It is impossible for a man to cultivate all of the possible skills he could learn and it would be futile to try. But there is something just… not… manly about a person who is utterly dependant on others to perform even the most basic of daily tasks. Are you familiar with Mr. Burns from The Simpsons?

I'm sure nobody here would deny the value of a liberal education and an exposure to a variety of thoughts and experiences. However, it seems to me that one can have a fulfilling life by doing precisely what one loves doing and does well. Would I esteem Howard Roark more if I knew that he was also an expert at playing bridge or playing the clarinet? Not necessarily. In fact, what fascinated me about him was his single consuming passion for designing great buildings. More importantly, if designing buildings was all it took in his workaday existence to make him happy, is there a problem? I don't see one.

As for the virtue of "Independence," here's what Rand wrote,

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 936)

This is about epistemological independence, not about autarchy or the notion that someone has to be able to tune his car and field dress a deer and bench press 300 lbs. to be a real man.

As I recall, Heinlein, like Oscar Wilde, was fond of provocative assertions, some designed more to amuse than to be taken as literal truth. For example: "Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it." Or: "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks."

And are you aware that the following statement is self-contradictory: "I don’t think it’s even possible to be good at medicine if all you’re good at is medicine."

I suspect that, like Heinlein's aphorisms, it was spoken somewhat in jest.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Daedalus

[Inspector]

However, it seems to me that one can have a fulfilling life by doing precisely what one loves doing and does well. Would I esteem Howard Roark more if I knew that he was also an expert at playing bridge or playing the clarinet?

He was good with a jackhammer, we know that much. But I agree that all the well-roundedness in the world isn’t any good if you can’t truly excel at at least one thing.

This is about epistemological independence

Yes, of course. My point was that they both were drawing from Aristotle.

As I recall, Heinlein, like Oscar Wilde, was fond of provocative assertions, some designed more to amuse than to be taken as literal truth.

Yes, precisely. His point wasn’t that you had to literally be able to do all of those things, or that division of labor is no good.

And are you aware that the following statement is self-contradictory: "I don’t think it’s even possible to be good at medicine if all you’re good at is medicine."

I suspect that, like Heinlein's aphorisms, it was spoken somewhat in jest.

Well, yes and no. What I mean is that it would be impossible to only be good at medicine and nothing else whatsoever. Knowledge is, after all, hierarchical, and besides: a good doctor uses a myriad of non-medical skills even in his practice of medicine.

If I wanted to jest, I’d say this: “He’s ignorant of all but surgery and golf? Ouch, I feel sorry for his wife.”

In all seriousness, however, I think that having a Roark-like focus on a career and putting every ounce of one’s effort into pursuing it is a wonderful, wonderful thing. I’m not against that. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the man could change a tire if he had to.

[Daedalus]

In all seriousness, however, I think that having a Roark-like focus on a career and putting every ounce of one’s effort into pursuing it is a wonderful, wonderful thing. I’m not against that. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the man could change a tire if he had to.

We really have no quarrel. The Heinlein quote does looks fishy at first glance, but anyone familiar with his work knows he's a friend of capitalism.

The Wiki has a nice selection of Heinlein quotes here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

[Matthew J]

Wow, I got here a bit late didnt I... Everything I wanted to say has been said so, Hear Hear! Except, I think the real examplary of this idea would not be Howard Roark, but Francisco D'anconia. He was good at everything he did, and he did most things. There's a man with specialisation, and at the same time, could do every single one of the things on that list I'd wager. Not only do them, but do them superlatively. After all, he's Francisco D'anconia.

I'm actually a bit interested in reading some of Heinlein's fiction. Would you recommend him as an author?

[dondigitalia]

Now, I have not read this particular author, so I have no idea what his real views are, but that quote is insufficient to go on. One can just as easily assume he meant it as a colorful way of saying that people should have an integrated view of the world and enjoy all the things the world has to offer.

That's exactly what he meant. Out of context, I can see how the quote can be misunderstood. The context of the book the quote is from, "Time Enough For Love," and the rest of the body of Heinlein's work leaves no doubt of his meaning.

The entire book centers around a man who loves everything life has to offer, and is set in a world where death can be delayed indefinitely, making it possible to enjoy literally everything. It's a pretty decent book. Not his best, but decent.

[Inspector]

We really have no quarrel.

Yes, I agree. I never truly thought we did.

I'm actually a bit interested in reading some of Heinlein's fiction. Would you recommend him as an author?

Yes, with a warning: He can get a little... weird... at times. But a lot of his stuff is entertaining enough to make it worthwhile.

[JMeganSnow]

Read Heinlein's earlier, shorter books, like The Door into Summer and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Those are great.

[dondigitalia]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Those are great.

That's my favorite one. IMO, he is the greatest science-fiction writer of all time.

[Inspector]

Read Heinlein's earlier, shorter books, like The Door into Summer and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Those are great.

Yes, those ones are good. They're a lot less weird than some of his later stuff.

[Daedalus]

Wow, I got here a bit late didnt I... Everything I wanted to say has been said so, Hear Hear! Except, I think the real examplary of this idea would not be Howard Roark, but Francisco D'anconia. He was good at everything he did, and he did most things. There's a man with specialisation, and at the same time, could do every single one of the things on that list I'd wager. Not only do them, but do them superlatively. After all, he's Francisco D'anconia.

His accomplishments are indeed heroic. But the Objectivist ideal, as I understand it, is not necessarily to achieve a multitude of achievements but to attain one's own happiness in the context of a rational life. For that reason, I'm not convinced that D'Anconia is more exemplary than, say Roark or Rearden, who are tightly focused on their own rather specialized but spectacular careers. Ayn Rand said that "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer

So if Roark's own happiness is about being just an architect -- but a great architect -- what's the problem?

I'm actually a bit interested in reading some of Heinlein's fiction. Would you recommend him as an author?

Yes. See Ms. Snow's recommendations above.

[Adrian Hester]

Read Heinlein's earlier, shorter books, like The Door into Summer and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Those are great.

Yes, they are; another favorite of mine is Double Star. Also, Tunnel in the Sky is well worth reading. And he wrote many excellent short stories and novellas.

[Unconquered]

Heinlein is my second favorite author, after Ayn Rand, and I love many of his stories, but he was not an Objectivist, and one shouldn't expect either the comments of his characters or his own comments to reflect a position from Objectivism. In some cases he was an ardent individualist, in others, an advocate of the view that the value of somebody is reflected in how much good he does for how many people (Utilitarianism basically.)

I am glad that I got to meet and talk with him for about 5 minutes at one of the L5 Space Development Conferences, in Houston, years ago. It wasn't too long before he died.