“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if, only, by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.“ – Ayn Rand
I get a real kick out those who say that Rand is wrong but the likes of Kant, Popper, Hegel, Hume, Rousseau, etc. who spoke ad nauseum about how there is no such thing as right and wrong are apparently right.
thomas aquinas – why on earth should one mention Aquinas’ commentary on Aristotle? I’m not a fan of Aquinas. Nor of Plato. I do admire Scotus. But, if I’m referring to Aristotle – why should I refer to anyone but Aristotle?
I haven’t read a word of Rand, and so can’t comment in depth – just on Yanni’s statement that the collective is of little value. I’m a strong proponent of individual freedom and reason, but, I don’t think one can ignore the ‘collective’. That’s because no individual can have a full grasp of knowledge.
Our knowledge has been created by individuals over the centuries; no one individual knows it all. We are, as Peirce said, a ‘community of scholars’; knowledge is a result of this community of scholars working – many without knowledge of each other – on various and similar issues. The continuity of knowledge is maintained by this community, by this obligation to store, to explore, to question, to advance, knowledge.
I don’t agree with the notion of ‘heroes’ (very much the Aegean era); the human society is ‘dual’; there’s the individual as explorer, questioner, analyst. And the community as synthesizer, generalist, holder of knowledge.
At a time like this I think it best to remember the wise words of the great philosopher, bon vivant and free market capitalist Captain Barbossa
whose only pithy comment we can firmly affix to Mr.Layton stands as: “Aahh nooo…we named the monkey Jack.”
@Babs:
Rand’s point is more formal than you may think. In order to assess any shade of grey as ‘grey,’ you need a standard of what is black and what is white. More practically, you need both in order to distinguish any shade of gray.
Had she been more mediatative (or perhaps Socratic!) she would have led the reader by the nose to show it.
Be that as it may, her philosophy recommends a two-step proceess:
1. Make sure you know what is the applicable “black,” and what is the applicable “white,” when judging an action.
2. Use the two opposing standards to decide whether such-and-such an action is black, white or a mixture of the two. Push back as far as you can, or want to, go.
[Digression: You need the residual concept ‘gray’ or else you’ll face an infinite regress.]
Robert A. Heinlein had a useful maxim that can serve as an addendum to the above: the hardest choice to make is between “bad” and “worse.” (Stanger in a Strange Land, said by the character Jubal Harshaw.)
You haven’t read much of Rand have you?-Enough to know she can be full of it, the above quote being a case in point.
Make sure you know what is the applicable “black,” and what is the applicable “white,” when judging an action.- The world isn’t black and white, it’s technicolor.
Okay, Babs what’s 2+2?
Babs: “The world isn’t black and white, it’s technicolor.”
So is the technicolor option black or white?
Is it technicolour or not?
NOW I know why I don’t belong here. While you gifted intelligent folks are discussing works that mean nothing (think about it) to the common man, you are building in your own world an intellectual racism.
While you read your books and study, the world goes to hell in a hand-basket.
Layton is an idiot – and Harper follows second close – and the real disaster (Liberals) sit back and clap their hands.
Mark my words – as bad as they sound – the Libs will be back sooner than will be for the good of the country.
Most here don’t know the definition of technicolor … which is a fairly old term.
I don’t know from Rand to Randy (and this is peon science), but life is NOT black, white, nor shades of grey. Those who speak of this are all goofy in my books. (Best word I could think of).
The people who are committing crimes against humanity are the people our military are after. That’s it and that’s all.
No excuses, no insanity pleas, and no tolerence.
We are such patsies, thanks to too many self-proclaimed “we have a better solution” folks that cannot get the votes of Canadian people, and who believe we could actually sit down with the Taliban, etc. … and sort things out with a chat or two.
My little joke here … have you ever been divorced? Two people. Not two nations.
Come on … folks. There is a time to set the books aside … not that we shouldn’t learn from them … but our country has to do something. And we are!
Vitruvius,
Rand was making a point; you didn’t.
Net-value determination by humans? Theorectically, maybe. Not a good basis for survival,however.
Your premise of net-value grants the jihadi equal moral ground. In all her works, Ayn simply recommended one decide, to the best of their abilitiy, to define life upfront and act accordingly. Her assertions about there actually being “absolutes” caused quite a stir among those unwilling to take on personal responsibility, as I recall.
In meetings with her, we all felt it was the closest we would ever get to “sitting at the feet” of Aristotle. And let me tell you folks, lots of really, really bright people made those gettogethers, some of the most intellectually stimulatng experiences of my life. Strike that; make them the most intellectually stimulating.
She would entertain us for 3-4 hours at a time, by taking on any serious question. Like “what is love.” To which she spontaneously answered: “Love is the emotional price one pays, for viewing in another, those virtues one holds in high esteem.” It may be rhetorical to you, but I haven’t found a better definition in over 40 years of looking. Economics, ethics, morals, capitalism, anything subject at all. Absolutely astounding performances, at least to me (who was 21). Unfortunately, I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting anyone with that lightning intellect, or elemental grasp of so many things since, and I’ve worked for and with some pretty bright people.
She was anti-establishment writ large. So, she got bad press, bad reviews, and denigrated by academia constantly; both the philo and the journo depts. For a novelist? Must have struck a few chords.
You cannot imagine the pressures she faced. A non-American (a RUSSIAN plant), female math PhD, telling people they needed to be responsible for their own actions, and there was no God to save you, so we are required to reason it out. And, compromise benefits neither party! Be rightious in all things. Ohmygosh, that requires a set of very strict rules for living. And who is she to judge?
Prescient? The situation portrayed in Atlas Shrugged, pretty much matches today, no?
Sorry for the long post. But, remembering requires context, the enemy of brevity.
You are not alone Rick W, I am not an intellectual.
I am a gun toting redneck who never read a book other than comics.
All I know is that commies need to be shot and freedom of life and enterprise need to be defended.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.
Geoffgo at July 6, 2007 10:28 AM.
Thanks, a most interesting post. I have only read The Fountainhead, which while not great literature in my view, had an enormous impact nonetheless. Hard today to imagine the incredible courage of Ayn Rand.
As a rightist/libertarian my most fervent wish is for lefties to truly understand the high morality of self interest and capitalism which flows from it. Sadly we have been taught that only altruism is moral. I consider it impossible, unnatural, sickly.
Let’s be clear. Jack Layton acts solely out of self interest, as does Svend Robinson, as does Stephen Lewis, as does the fruitfly guy.
That is their mental illness: the inability to acknowedge and embrace their pursuit of self interest and to recognize that is is natural and moral action.