Hmm, the post I made in this topic seems to have disappeared…
I suspected she was just taking certain aspects of him in her admiration. But it took the context provided by this thread for me to fully realize that. The article that attacked her for it didn’t provide the full context, so while I suspected that it was just his independence and arrogance that attracted Rand, I didn’t know for sure until I read this thread.
I forget where I read this, but I once saw this part of Ayn Rand’s life called her “Nietzsche phase”. If she gave any weight to the idea that morality is good for the unwashed mashes, but not good enough for extraordinary men (Ubermensch, anyone?), and that these men should follow their own, subjective “inner law” (chosen by the degree to which it allowed them to impose their will on others), I could see how Hickman’s horrific crime could take a back seat to his attitude towards life.
Was Rand ever really that endeared to Nietzsche’s philosophy? Especially with regard to morality? I have heard that she was fond of his prose and the occasional insightful comment negating religion or exalting man, but not his morality.
I forget where I read this, but I once saw this part of Ayn Rand’s life called her “Nietzsche phase”. If she gave any weight to the idea that morality is good for the unwashed mashes, but not good enough for extraordinary men (Ubermensch, anyone?), and that these men should follow their own, subjective “inner law” (chosen by the degree to which it allowed them to impose their will on others), I could see how Hickman’s horrific crime could take a back seat to his attitude towards life.
Even if we set aside whether your characterization of Nietzsche is correct or not, there are several facts about Rand that we do know:
-
She never adopted Nietzsche’s view of morality. The only thing that comes close to that would be a statement that she liked Nietzsche before she figured him out. Then she realized that what he was saying was not something she agreed with. That’s not a phase, just giving a great mind the benefit of the doubt.
-
Hickman’s crime did not ever take a backseat to his attitude, for Rand. She appreciated the attitude without appreciating the crime, or the person for that matter.
This second point, by the way, you can find out just by reading this thread. It has direct quotes.
Even if we set aside whether your characterization of Nietzsche is correct or not, there are several facts about Rand that we do know:
She never adopted Nietzsche’s view of morality. The only thing that comes close to that would be a statement that she liked Nietzsche before she figured him out. Then she realized that what he was saying was not something she agreed with. That’s not a phase, just giving a great mind the benefit of the doubt.
Hickman’s crime did not ever take a backseat to his attitude, for Rand. She appreciated the attitude without appreciating the crime, or the person for that matter.
This second point, by the way, you can find out just by reading this thread. It has direct quotes.
I see. I was under the impression that as she was educating herself, she had adopted his morality to some degree and in her studies she realized he was wrong.
With regards to your comment on the direct quotes, they just seemed to lack characteristics that I associate with her writing. Hickman was a murdering lunatic, and Rand is known for showing a lot of emotion when she condemns someone like that, so I expected more from her on the topic than a critique of societal response and calling him a “degenerate”. But, what didn’t register with me is that the quotes were from her journals (which I’ll most likely wind up subscribing to on account of this embarassing situation), and it isn’t likely that she wrote to herself like she was writing to the public.
Recently there was an opinion piece published on the same topic:
I don’t see a problem one way or another. Who doesn’t like psychopathic murderers?
I am not suprised to see the Rand/Hickman thing being brought out as a weapon against Rand’s resurgence, it just shows how desperate the Left is right now. There’s a certain irony here, too, involving hypocrisy on the Left’s part. In Journals of Ayn Rand, Rand is presented as clearly drawing the line at where the “admiration” end (with the degeneracy and murders). Contrast that with Rand’s criticism of the Left’s “admiration” for the very same subject, not for the virtues, but FOR the degeneracy. From The Romantic Manifesto:
"…to escape from guilt and arouse pity, one has to portray man as impotent and innately loathsome. Hence the competition among modern artists to find every lower levels of depravity and even higher degrees of mawkishness–a competition to show the public out of its wits and jerks its tears. Hence the frantic search for misery, the descent from compassionate studies of alcoholism and sexual perversion to dope, incest, psychosis, murder, cannabalism.
“To illustrate the moral implications of this trend–the fact that pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent–I submit an enthusiastic review that commends a current movie for arousing compassion for kidnappers. ‘One’s attention and, indeed, one’s anxiety is centered more upon them than upon the kidnapped youngster,’ states the review. And: ‘As a matter of fact, the motivation is not so clearly defined that it bears analysis or criticism on psychological grounds. But it is sufficiently established to compel our anguished sympathy for the two incredible kidnappers.’ (The New York Times, November 6, 1964.)” –“Bootleg Romanticism”
The movie, btw, is A Seance on A Wet Afternoon, and here’s the review. Judge for yourself Rand’s take on the review, but it’s interesting to read this in relation to her Hickman comments. But with the left, it’s more of a “See? Rand sympathized with psycho-killers, too! She’s no better than the rest of us!” Which would be totally wrong, contexts dropped and smashed all over the floor. Rand romanticized and extracted the better implications, while the New York Times review shows her enemy’s true motivations.
I agree that Rand was admiring only certain aspects of Hickman, but what an extremely odd thing to admire aspects of a man’s character who dismembered a little girl and removed all her organs.
Hickman’s actions were so utterly disgusting that confirming Godwin’s law in this case is justified. If I was to admire aspects of Hitler’s character who gassed people I’d be rightly desribed as odd at best, and at worst extremely immoral.
I agree that Rand was admiring only certain aspects of Hickman, but what an extremely odd thing to admire aspects of a man’s character who dismembered a little girl and removed all her organs.
Hickman’s actions were so utterly disgusting that confirming Godwin’s law in this case is justified. If I was to admire aspects of Hitler’s character who gassed people I’d be rightly desribed as odd at best, and at worst extremely immoral.
You realise this statement is representative of exactly why Rand said she could admire parts of his character, right?
Think of the statement oft said- “If only he used his powers for good instead of evil”
Rand condemned his actions and stated he was a degenerate.
But during the time when Rand made these statements- society was even more deeply conformist than it is now. People faked their way through life pretending to believe things they didn’t believe, dressing the way others thought they should dress. Heck, a guy having long hair was scandalous.
So it is not entirely out of left field that a man who stated that his happiness was all that mattered to him would catch her eye. That she would then say to herself- “what if a moral man lived like that? Was willing to present himself to the world that way, unafraid?”
Anyway… that has always been my take on her interest in him and her words in regard to him.
I agree that Rand was admiring only certain aspects of Hickman, but what an extremely odd thing to admire aspects of a man’s character who dismembered a little girl and removed all her organs.
Hickman’s actions were so utterly disgusting that confirming Godwin’s law in this case is justified. If I was to admire aspects of Hitler’s character who gassed people I’d be rightly desribed as odd at best, and at worst extremely immoral.
Everyone finds things they don’t understand “odd”. But then we have a choice: we can be curious and look for the reason someone made an unusual choice, or we can be drones and just superficially dismiss everything we don’t understand, with the pseudo logic of thinking by association.
1 Like
Hickman’s actions were so utterly disgusting that confirming Godwin’s law in this case is justified. If I was to admire aspects of Hitler’s character who gassed people I’d be rightly desribed as odd at best, and at worst extremely immoral.
To my understanding, Rand was more interested in the public’s reaction to Hickman than the man himself, and seemed to think that the reaction was more due to his taking pride in defying the morals of society than in the crimes he actually committed. This aspect of his situation intrigued her, and provided fuel for a later short story which incorporated a proud man on trial in front of an outraged society, without the serial murder part. With this in mind, the more appropriate Hitler comparison might be admiring or at least acknowledging how successful Hitler was at propagandizing himself and gaining public opinion during his rise to power. Plenty of healthy, moral people have spent countless hours analyzing Hitler’s Nazi propaganda and how it was so successful, and have learned valuable things about propaganda, charisma, etc that have nothing to do with the evil things Hitler did.
1 Like
To my understanding, Rand was more interested in the public’s reaction to Hickman than the man himself,
Indeed she said
The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the ‘virtuous’ indignation and mass-hatred of the ‘majority.’… It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal…
So Rand thinks that most people have worse sins than cutting up a little girl? How horrifying that she views society to be so loathsome.
So Rand thinks that most people have worse sins than cutting up a little girl? How horrifying that she views society to be so loathsome.
This forum is not the place for oblique attacks on Rand.
That said I will assume you aren’t intentionally making vague unanswerable assertions and ask you a few questions about your statement.
Is one man killing one girl the worst thing a person has ever done?
Is it the worst thing a person could possibly do?
If so why? Is it the gender difference?
The age difference?
The fact that her body was mutilated post death?
The fact that ransom was demanded?
Assuming you are engaging in a serious dialogue on this matter in an attempt to understand why Rand made the statements she did you need to answer the question-
Was this crime the worst thing ever done and if so why?
“So Rand thinks that most people have worse sins than cutting up a little girl? How horrifying that she views society to be so loathsome.”
I, too, find it extremely troublesome. Plenty of people seem to want to make excuses (her young age, her Nietsche phase, taken out of context, etc.), but that doesn’t cover the belief that the average person is WORSE than a butchering killer. It’s especially weird since she left Russia because everything in Russia was bad and America was the wonderful country of bright freedom. So she gets here, and now AMERICANS are totally despicable. As for her admiration that Hickman was unrepentent, the same can certainly be said for most of the prison population today.
I don’t see how one can escape that this view of mankind if horrifying. And sad.
1 Like
I don’t see how one can escape that this view of mankind if horrifying. And sad.
It would do good to read post #5.
It would do good to read post #5.
I second this: post #5 is excellent.
This forum is not the place for oblique attacks on Rand.
An attack? This is not an attack, this is a neutral question as to why Rand thought that the majority of people were worse than a murderer. The fact that someone could think this depresses me, so forgive me for being slightly horrified or at least dismayed.
Assuming you are engaging in a serious dialogue on this matter in an attempt to understand why Rand made the statements she did you need to answer the question-
Was this crime the worst thing ever done and if so why?
I agree this was not the worst thing ever done. But the point is that she thought the _ average _ person had worse sins than this.
It would do good to read post #5.
#5 does not address the following from Rand:
It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal
Or are you saying that when Rand says this she was fantasising as per #5? Is that better than her actually believing it?!
Or are you saying that when Rand says this she was fantasising as per #5? Is that better than her actually believing it?!
Actually believing what? You made sure to cut off the quote before she explains who and what she was referring to, in the hopes that you’ll find a few people lazy enough to believe your lie that she was referring to the “average person”.
Here’s what she was referring to: " Oh, that their best is so very small! Oh, that their worst is so very small! And oh, how horrid it is to be small!". That is from Nietzsche, and it hints to a belief system that is a far greater evil than Hickman’s degeneracy. It is something that, in my humble opinion, doesn’t fit many people, but it describes one in this thread pretty well: you.
Instead of dabbling in more out of context quotes and superficial, lazy, daft observations about them, you should do some reading, understand both the context of the full journal entry (by reading it and the writings of the people she criticized in it), as well as the context of the Nietzsche quote and his overall philosophy. Then you can come back and add a few informed, honest and helpful questions and comments to this thread, instead of this aimless trolling. There actually are contradictions in that journal entry worthy of criticism (Ayn Rand’s later work resolves those contradictions). Too bad you haven’t gotten around to identifying them, so that someone could direct you towards their resolution.
Instead you’re concerned with finding something that you can react to on an emotional level, to point at it and hate it without having to actually think. That need for emotional satisfaction devoid of intellectual work is a symptom of our current society (as evidenced by all the “gotcha” style of journalism, directed against pretty much anyone in the public eye), just like it was a symptom of the society Ayn Rand was describing. But it’s not true that the average person feels it, it’s only a select few. Most people I come across actually struggle to understand things, they rarely have this craving, for a piece of sensationalist meat to sink their hateful teeth into, that you are so eloquently displaying.
2 Likes