An Ongoing Discussion Between a Young Man and Old Klaus
Part 3
Please click here to read the first part.
Please click here to read the second part.
---
Friend: I've begun TF. I completed the second chapter a bit ago. I can already understand your personal attraction to the novel.
Klaus: Good!
Friend: What motivates Ellsworth Toohey?
Klaus: Heh! Where in TF are you now? I don't want to spoil anything, so I need to know your current place in the story.
Friend: Roark and Wynand are in Roark's office. Wynand dropped by unexpected and unannounced for the first time. Roark was working on the drawings for Wynand's new home.
Klaus: Ah. That far along. Well, I think it is better for you to just keep reading -- and discover more about Toohey, in time.
Friend: It bothers me that I don't know what drives him. Every other character has clear and well-defined values and motives. To quote Alfred Pennyworth, "some men just want to watch the world burn." I assume this to be among Toohey's more sinister desires.
Klaus: Patience, grasshopper, patience.
Friend: So far I am enjoying the novel immensely. However, I believe I prefer Atlas Shrugged. Having never been an artist, I cannot fully sympathize with the struggles of Roark, but I do understand the concepts.
Klaus: Good! Different strokes for different folks.
Friend: So, it was the lust for power and desire to see socialism implemented worldwide that drove Toohey's efforts.
Klaus: Power-lust. Yes. And he used altruism as his primary manipulative mechanism. So you have finished TF now? Or only reached Toohey's speech to Keating?
Friend: I completed it during my lunch hour at the office. I was disappointed to see the end of Wynand's friendship with Roarke.
Klaus: It is one of The Greatest Tragedies in world literature -- Wynand & Roark.
Friend: They were so close in their philosophies, and yet Wynand still desired power over others above anything else. He sold his soul. His short inner monologue during his meeting with the board was unsettling.
Klaus: And later, when he walks the streets of NYC -- he is fully aware of his treason to his own potential.
Friend: There was nothing left for him. I can't help but wonder if the suicide he had long-imagined would eventually become reality for him.
Klaus: His physical suicide, at the start, has happened at the end -- in the spiritual sense. Now you are FREE see the 1949 TF movie! It's very troubled in many ways -- but still, in its best parts, a pretty damn good show. I have a love-hate view of that movie. The script -- by AR -- is a brilliant condensation of the novel into a two-hour movie. Close to perfect, maybe. But so much of the casting, direction, acting, set design, etc. -- quite troubled. So I recommend you see it sometime. Well. What do you want to read NOW? From here on, it's all optional!
Friend: I'm not certain. I believe it will be difficult to find a book of Objectivist fiction capable of surpassing TF and AS, and I am still waiting on my other books to arrive. I prefer to have physical copies of nonfiction works, so I'm stuck at the moment.
Klaus: Both "Anthem" and "We the Living" are superb fiction works. Superb. Though of course they are earlier works of hers, so in purely intellectual terms they are not up in the stratospheric range of TF and AS. But as pure literature -- they are still World Class.
Friend: I might try those. Why did she choose "The Fountainhead?"
Klaus: You mean, that specific title of TF?
Friend: Yes.
Klaus: She discusses that title at some length in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Art-Fiction-Guide-Writers-Readers/dp/0452281547 She had several other ideas before it, all troubled in various respects. After a number of tries, she settled on TF -- even though she says it's not ideal. She was a bit lukewarm about it, personally. It's not a Pure Inspired Genius title -- like "Atlas Shrugged" is.
Klaus: Her long-standing working title was "Second-Hand Lives". She liked and wanted that title. But then her editor at Bobbs-Merrill Publishing, Archie Ogden, pointed out, "then you make the book about Keating & Company only!" She was shocked to hear that -- but instantly conceded his valid point.
Another title she liked was "The Prime Movers" -- but Archie objected to that, since very few would know the Aristotle-reference, and instead think the book was about people who moved houses! So there were various such attempts at a title -- before TF emerged as a serviceable title.
The Norwegian title for TF is far better than the original: "Kildens utspring". But no, I cannot easily explain to you WHY that is so good. It just is so. To all we who know that lingo.
Friend: You are exceptional at answering questions before they are asked.
Klaus: Heh. I just know a few things -- in this domain.
Friend: I had an interesting conversation with my father yesterday about Objective morality, the source of man's rights, and problems inherent in democracy (He leans to the right on the political spectrum, and recently voted for Donald Trump). There were many inconsistencies in his statements, and I pointed out some of his more egregious fallacies, e.g. the importance of the majority. It was interesting to see the mental wall he quickly erected against my statements and what he refers to as "those people on the internet."
Klaus: Alas, yes, it's not very likely you will manage to make a dent in your Father's thinking. But in time, you might try to get him to read something by AR on his own? It might nudge him a bit.
Friend: My family do not read. I've never seen my father lift a book, not in all of my 24 years. He reads outdoor magazines that discuss such topics and hunting and fishing, but even that is incredibly rare. In fact, my late grandmother was the closest to an "intellectual" in my family, and she did not live to see my discovery of Ayn Rand. It is one of my deepest regrets.
Klaus: Oy vey. Yes, too many people are like that -- they have bibliophobia. My own Mom was a librarian by profession, so books, books, books was part of my youthful natural habitat. So big, heavy books, they never scared me, from early on -- on the contrary, I loved them. If they were good, that is.
Friend: My wife frequently takes our son to the library. I hope he mirrors my love of books and knowledge. At the moment he has a book on trains, and he often asks me to read my books to him. He cannot read yet, but the roots are there!
Klaus: You're priming his pump real good!
-----------
Friend: In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to justify the actions of individuals such as Hitler and Genghis Khan by arguing that morality changes over time in a kind of "moral zeitgeist." Because of this, their actions are partially justified. When this is combined with his genetic rationalization for universal morality, I can begin to understand his fundamental flaws. However, his intellectual discussion of religion remains valid and well-developed.
Klaus: Dawkins is a relativist and subjectivist in morality. But many of his potshots against religion have propaganda value. Though his skepticism undermines his case, between the lines.
Friend: Yes, his avoidance of absolutes certainly lessens his credibility. However, I am reading this book solely for the religious analysis, nothing more. He would certainly be less important on my list of influential philosophers!
Klaus: Indeed.
Friend: Your friend Xxxxx Zzzzzz seems to enjoy instigating confrontations.
Klaus: Sometimes, he is a bit cranky, yes. But on the whole, not troublesome. I've seen far worse! He's not an outright Objectist -- he is sympathetic to Objectivism, but he has not studied the ideas. So I regard him as one of those people I am fine with helping to educate.
Friend: I understand. What causes his hesitation?
Klaus: I do not know.
Friend: Well, at least he is open to the philosophy. One can always work with that. I've begun browsing The Objective Standard online. They have a wealth of articles on topics I hadn't realized I was interested in.
Klaus: Yes, they have much good stuff.
Friend: I'd like to learn more about the artistic realm of Objectivism. What are these objective methods of analysis you spoke of?
Klaus: They are not quickly summarized. For starters, you should read RM. The Romantic Manifesto. That lays down the base.
Klaus: Then followed by AR's "The Art of Fiction" -- for literary-technical things.
Friend: Today I purchased "Ayn Rand Answers," "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," "Why Businessmen Need Philosophy," VoS, PWNI, CTUI, and "The Romantic Manifesto".
Klaus: Aha! A super collection!
Friend: All for less than 20 dollars, too. There is a local bookstore that is VERY well stocked with all kinds of wonderful books.
Klaus: A staggering bargain!
-----------
Klaus: Hey bud! How you doing with your AR-readings?
Friend: Oh, just fine. I'm reading AS again, which is much more enjoyable the second time. I am also reading Answers and PWNI, while my wife has volunteered to read VOS.
Klaus: Hah! Great you're redoing AS so soon. Super your wife is also jumping on this train. Then you will have mountains of great discussions. I also re-read AS after around 3 months.
Friend: It is one of only a handful of novels I have ever read more than once. Since I know the plot beforehand, a great many easily-overlooked details have surfaced which enrich my understanding of the story.
Yes, my wife's agreement to read the book is made more surprising by her religiosity. We have had several enjoyable late-night discussions of the true virtue of a egoistic lifestyle. Hopefully she will overcome that dreadful religion in time, but I do not force that particular issue. Baby steps!
Klaus: It is most excellent that you are able to be relaxed about her religiosity. She is still so young that she has a great chance of escaping that -- through baby steps! AR has cured gazillions of religious people.
Yes, NOW you will grok heaps of things in AS you never grasped the first time. And you will do that -- also on your 10th re-reading. I'm on around 25 re-readings of TF now -- I still saw new things the last time I read it. Art this rich and deep -- it is inexhaustible.
Friend: Most definitely! I am still having a bit of trouble understanding the meaning of metaphysics and epistemology. What exactly do those mean, and how are they to be applied?
Klaus: Oh boy. I cannot quickly explain that here. You must accept that those subjects take time and effort. The best one-stop AR book for that is PWNI. In my own case, I estimate it took about two years of intensive readings and studies before I started to get my head around Oist epistemology. And I wasn't the slowest kid in class. This stuff is just difficult. Accept that. Relax. Then you will get it, in time.
Friend: Not just Objectivist Epistemology and metaphysics, but the meaning of the words in general. The dictionaries and thesauruses I have read haven't helped very much. I'm not sure I could have even a rudimentary discussion of the topics.
Klaus: OK, I will try to explain a bit here. The special sciences -- physics, chemistry, biology, etc. -- they study "local" aspects of Reality. Physics deals with matter and energy, chemistry with the nature of compounds, biology with living things. But there are general, global aspects of Reality which we also need to study and know -- not covered by any of the specialized sciences.
For example, everything in Reality involves entities and their causal relationships. That is Causality. Which neither physics, chemistry, biology, etc. have anything to say about -- rather, those disciplines PRESUPPOSE that Causality is operative in Reality. So that is one important thing which Metaphysics deals with: The nature of Causality. A proper Metaphysics will account for the nature of Causality. And one "side-effect" of that is to totally kill off all religious notions of "miracles".
In Reality, there is nothing but natural causes. The entities of Reality are what they are -- that is the Law of Identity, another crucial principle of Metaphysics -- and that determines how entities will act and therefore also interact.
So that's a super-brief summary of the nature of Metaphysics. It studies the nature of Reality -- in a way which the specialized sciences do not, but rather presuppose. Does that help a bit?
Friend: Certainly. That clears things up quite a bit. So, if one denies the Law of Causality (i.e. belief in miracles, prayer, karma, etc) this would in turn skew their knowledge of the Law of identity because such beliefs conflict with reality. An incorrect perception of reality means the individual's metaphysics is entirely false. Yes or no?
Klaus: Well, yes and no. :-)
Klaus: Because your phrase "an incorrect perception of reality" is ambiguous. In a very important way, there is NO such thing as "an incorrect perception of reality" -- if by "perception" we mean, as we should, "sense perception". But that phrase vacillates between "sense perception" and "conceptual interpretation". This is immensely common in our culture.
Klaus: Considered from the standpoint of sense perception -- all perception of Reality is valid. You see what you see, you hear what you hear, etc. But how you _conceptually interpret_ those perceptual observations -- that is where errors can arise.
Klaus: And now we're suddenly in the domain of Epistemology! Namely, the nature of human knowledge -- the basis of our knowledge in sense-perception, the principles of concept-formation, of logic, of propositional knowledge, etc. None of those things are studied by the specialized sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.-- but are ALSO presupposed by those sciences.
Friend: How incredibly complex.
Klaus: Yes. As I said: this takes much time and effort to get one's head around. It did for me. It will do so for you. Relax. Chill. LP's OPAR lays all this down, in great detail, in a superbly logical manner of presentation. But I deem it as premature for you to read that book yet. You are far better served by reading widely in AR's own books, at this stage of your self-education.
Friend: I am perfectly content doing so. Are you familiar with the ideas of the "you didn't build that" argument common among leftists?
Klaus: Sure.
Friend: It seems to create an impassable barrier in their minds. Without paying our taxes, we would have no infrastructure, law & order, emergency response, or even a stable currency. In their minds, this is what allowed businesses to exist at all. How does one overcome such an argument?
Klaus: Dinner now. Will reply a bit later. But a crucial part of the right refutation is found in Roark's Speech.
Friend: I may have missed that. Another reading of TF is in order!
Klaus: Yes!
Klaus: OK, here is the TF quote I have in mind -- which is one highly necessary part of combating that "you didn't build that" stuff -- though some more parts are also needed: -------------
Klaus: “We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival. ---------------
Klaus: The most salient part there is: "But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step."
Friend: This doesn't seem to address the influence of the state and its upkeep of infrastructure and public utilities / services with our taxes.
Klaus: No, it does not. I said MORE was needed. But this part IS highly crucial: everything I do IS done by ME. So what I DO -- it belongs to ME.
Friend: Ah. Yes, that much I understand clearly. It is discussed in AS as well, insofar as man's mind, not muscle, is the source of industry and wealth.
Klaus: This is metaphysics. This is causality. Which precedes all lesser discussions of social-political matters. Now let's look at some lesser aspects of this, given the establishing of that base. "Without paying our taxes, we would have no infrastructure, law & order, emergency response, or even a stable currency." That line alone contains several falsehoods, all neatly packed together. It assumes that taxes -- ENFORCED extraction of money -- is necessary for a society. That we Objectivists reject. It also assumes that the State can or should provide "a stable currency" -- also false. But these are more nitty-gritty issues, which requires dealing with on those levels. Which I am not going to do now. I am just pointing this out -- to quickly rejected those premises.
Friend: No rejection needed, I am familiar with the fallacies in the arguments. Here, I am speaking more from a past-tense tone: i already paid taxes, these things were already here when i began my industry, and thus they were invaluable to my success. This is the mentality of such an argument.
Klaus: Yes, yes. But I need to explicate the various parts of this. For one thing, I cannot know what you do or do not know. I am only smart -- not psychic! One step at a time.
Klaus: The most essential part of the "you didn't build that" mentality is this: OTHER people -- who came before you in this world -- have created social structures which YOU did not yourself BUILD or even CHOOSE. By the mere fact of these things pre-existing in the world -- you are supposed to regard yourself as a semi-slave of these structures. They, supposedly, create an UNCHOSEN OBLIGATION on your part. But the whole idea of unchosen obligations must be rejected. Because morality -- right or wrong, and our obligations to others -- can solely be due to what we CHOSE. And not to the unchosen.
Klaus: On those false premises -- every person born and raised in this world has heaps of unchosen obgligations to all people who came before him. We are, on this view, all born into slavery. That's what the "you didn't build that" mentality boils down to: every man born and raised on this planet is a slave to all those who came before him. So I say, "every man is born free, no man is born a slave."
Klaus: The fact that you MUST walk on streets built by others before you (through forced taxes) and that you MUST attend schools financed by others (through forced taxes) -- it imposes no metaphysical debt for you to repay to the rest of the world. You had no choice in the matter. You are born without any debts, and you accrue no debts -- merely by existing and living.
Friend: This idea seems to be at the root of the supposed social contract as well.
Klaus: Yes, indeed. Just two slightly different variations -- on the same born-into-slavery idea.
Friend: It astounds me that Rand was able to so eloquently address so many different ideas in a single novel. Why AS is not more widely studied in grade school is surprising from a literary perspective.
Klaus: Indeed. In fact, I have created a lecture about TF -- which is all about purely literary things. Because Objectivists tend to overfocus on her philosophy -- at the expense of her literary brilliance. So I tried to correct that misbalance in my lecture.
Friend: I have seen you praise Ennio Morricone on facebook. Have you heard Yo-Yo Ma's performance of Morricone's Ecstasy of Gold?
Klaus: I am not sure, though I have heard quite a few YYM performances. Good, eh?
Friend: Quite good, yes. Ecstasy of Gold is one of my favorites of Morricone's, as it is part of the old American Western film "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly."
Klaus: Yes, I know the movie, sure. But it's not exactly American -- it's Spaghetti-Western!
-----
Friend: How does the concept of Transgenderism relate to the law of identity? It seems to me that it generates a conflict.
Klaus: Indeed! Such people are walking contradictions -- more precisely, there is a huuuuuuuuuge mind/body split in them.
Friend: That's my conclusion as well. They often think they are born the wrong gender, or have some type of hormone imbalance. Is there any way to reach people such as that? They often seem quite convinced of their biological / neurological insanity.
Klaus: What's needed is years of psychotherapy! Except . . . modern therapists, too many don't think this bizarre delusion is a problem, and instead just pour gasoline on the flames.
Friend: I suppose this is one of the many nasty side-effects of a feeling-focused society.
Klaus: Yes. Rampant, galloping subjectivism.
Friend: So realistically, short of becoming a therapist, there's little Objectivists can do about such things. That is, other than opening their mind to rationality.
Klaus: Yes, huge doses of rationality COULD, in the best of cases, improve the thinking of such tragically deluded people. But it's a long shot, alas -- given the subjectivism all around them, and the constant injunctions "to just be yourself". "Being yourself" is all right -- IF you are not royally screwed-up to begin with. But if you are objectively a psychological mess -- then "being yourself" is the very last advice you need.
Friend: Very well said.
-------------Friend: It is intriguing that individuals, especially intellectuals, can get so carried away by metaphysical presumptions. I purchased an advanced university lecture on metaphysics today, and the professor seems hell-bent on forcing listeners to question EVERYTHING. He questions the idea that 2+2=4, and even that 2 is 2 at all. At first I thought Rand was simply making a statement in AS when she mentions nothing is absolute, but I am beginning to understand that these are not mere bromides, but statements regarding the flawed metaphysics of the antagonists in the novel.
Klaus: Yes, and these ideas are bloody everywhere in our culture, for real. What is in AS is just an essentialized form of the philosophical ideas all around us.
Friend: I can't remember if I have mentioned this to you before, but I have observed that Objectivism is one of the only, if not THE only, existing philosophies that is without contradiction. Expected, but impressive nonetheless.
Klaus: Well, I've studied Objectivism for 34 years now -- and I can Konfirm your neophyte's impression. :-) But I will add that it is THE only.
Friend: Consider the phrase "perception is reality." This was spoken by my supervisor today (which prompted a quick correction on my part). This combines both metaphysical and epistemological errors. Metaphysical, because combining them into such a statement creates a false sense of Causality in one's mind. Epistemological, because reality exists independently from human perception. It is only through our perception of it that we can generate rational conceptions about reality. When a conceptual product corresponds to reality, then it is true. Correct?
Klaus: That's pretty good! Yes, that widespread, horrible phrase -- it is one of the many explicit forms of galloping subjectivism in our culture. It is concentrated Kantianism.
Friend: I told you I will spare no effort in understanding these monumental concepts. I am determined!
Klaus: Good dog!
---------Friend: Have you read Peikoff's The Dim Hypothesis?
Klaus: Yes and no. Parts of it, but not all.
Friend: I ordered it today. I was curious of your opinion.
Klaus: Ordered it! I do not recommend it to you -- yet. It is a very advanced work. It is the one Objectivist-related book I am in least command of myself. But it is premature in your own readings, that I am sure of.
Friend: Eh. There's no harm in reading advanced books. No one ever learned by reading children's books forever!
Klaus: Yeah, but you have ITOE ahead of you, and OPAR and HWK -- hardly children's books! It won't harm you. But I do not regard it as the best way to prioritize your reading time.
Friend: I don't either. But I want it on my bookshelf anyway, so it will be instantly available when I want to jump in.
Klaus: Good backup plan!
Friend: I'd like to begin a few lectures from ARI. Can you recommend any? I noticed your friend Dr. Binswanger has a few lectures for sale there.
Klaus: As before: What topics are YOU most INTERESTED in? When there are many valid options regarding studies -- that should always be one's guiding star. Because it's RIGHT to be selfish -- and thus to purse one's personal values.
Friend: Will you expand on Rand's acceptance of social security in her final years, and the morality of her doing so?
Klaus: Oh, that old issue.
Friend: Yes, I'm discussing Objectivism with someone and he claims she is a hypocrite and therefore invalid. I am not educated enough on the issue to provide a lengthy analysis, and am having a hard time finding sources online.
Klaus: I'd answer in the strongest way possible known to me: it is ONLY those of us who are OPPOSED -- on moral principle -- to all kinds of enforced welfare state schemes who are morally ENTITLED to receive back at least some of what has been extracted from us. Because WE would shut down welfarism in ONE second -- if we had a magic button to push. Unlike all the pro-welfare moochers and parasites, who keeps pressing the buttons to keep that moral abomination going.
As a secondary point: When you have been FORCED by the State to pay into some welfare-state mechanism for decades -- whatever you are able to get back in your old age, you are morally entitled to. Especially given the FIRST point, above.
Your hypocrite-charging friend is -- assuming he supports the welfare state -- NOT morally entitled to suck from the teat of the welfare state, i.e., all those who produced economic values which they have confiscated from them at the point of a gun.
But YOU and And Rand and I -- we are morally entitled to get some of our confiscated wealth back. If we can manage. Which we, mostly, never manage -- because we are in too much food-competition in this trough with all the welfare-supporting hogs. Then they win and we lose.
Since this damn effing issue gets my blood pressure up too much -- the absurd charge of "hypocrisy" against AYN RAND, the most principled enemy of ALL kinds of welfare statism ever -- I hope what I wrote above will be sufficient. Because of blood pressure!
Friend: It irritates me as well. It is more than enough. Thank you.
Klaus: Whew!
Friend: Want to get your blood pressure up again? From my other exchange : "Hahahahha. The numbers in fact aren't irrelevant. The "wealth" you claim you've had stolen hasn't been. You won't pay nearly as much in as you get back. And yes I've read them. They [Rand's novels] are garbage as I said before. Puesdo intellectual garbage that is irrational and as I said at the start of the conversation hews towards never changing ideas about what parasites and moochers are, what the role of the state is, reality be damned. Never mind changing reality that might necessitate adaptation, let's stick with our preconceived notions no matter what. Its a stupid irrational idea [objectivism] I am very familiar with. Let me assure you that familiarity has bred contempt. It should be noted that these are works of fiction, and they are bad at being a good story as well. Government always equals bad. Magic mountain of freedom always equals good. Its reductive garbage. Its not even a good story."
Friend: I had to end my conversation with that individual. His insults were becoming progressively worse. Between attacking Rand's validity and my own intelligence, I couldn't take it any longer.
Klaus: That writing was on the wall, eh?
Klaus: In 97% of all cases, you can judge the decency and honesty of people's criticism of AR and Objectivism -- by the very nature of their criticism. There are a few serious, honest criticisms here and there -- and they are NEVER of this hysterical, sarcastic nature.
Friend: Unfortunately. He is rather well educated about other topics. Economics especially. But without a proper morality it is all for naught. It upsets me that people can be so nasty, especially during an otherwise enjoyable conversation.
Klaus: Brace yourself for that, for the next 50 years. :-)
Friend: I ordered a few more books today. OPAR, ITOE, a physical copy of AS, "Ominous Parallels," and "Loving Life" by Craig Biddle.
Klaus: Splendid! Which one do you think you will read next? Given your current stage -- I'd recommend Biddle first.
Friend: I prefer my audio version of Atlas Shrugged. I purchased a paper copy to lend to others. I had considered Ominous Parallels next, but the book by Biddle is intriguing. That will likely be the one.
I've noticed Objectivists tend to reference Aristotle somewhat frequently. I purchased a lecture series on Aristotle's ethics (unread thus far), but what about Aristotle lines up with Objectivism?
Klaus: Oh, Aristotle lines up a great deal! In the Big Picture things.
His metaphysics is very much aligned with the Objectivist views. In essence: There is only ONE reality, the one we directly perceive with our senses. And things have firm identities -- which is also why things act they way they have to. So that is causality -- a naturalistic, non-miraculous view of cause-effect. There are many lesser details where Aristotle differs -- where he has some remnants of Platonism and other errors. But those details are not as fundamental as the points above. He is a Good Guy, for sure.
In epistemology, well, Aristotle essentically discovered and formalized the whole field of logic. Just about all he wrote on logic 2300 years ago is true and valid. He also wrote many great things about then nature of concepts and of definitions, which also align nicely with Objectivism.
In ethics, he is an advocate of rational egoism, to a remarkable degree, and has many wonderful things to say about human morality. But so he does not have a deeply grounded ethics -- he has no explicit knowledge about the nature of values as rooted in the conditional nature of life.
In politics, well, no one then had any notions about "rights". But that aside, Aristotle is still pretty good -- he disavows not only various forms of authoritarian regimes, but he is also, most soundly, against democracy, which he properly understood was just unlimited mob rule.
In esthetics he had many great insights into the nature of art, chiefly literature/drama, which also Objectivists can warmly embrace. But he does not have AR's staggeringly deep theories and insights about art.
So hell yeah -- Aristotle did pretty damn good!
Friend: Astounding. I will study him further for sure. Naturally, I have public education to thank for my near-total ignorance of his work. I appreciate Aristotle already for his extensive contribution to science. I was unaware he was such a "Renaissance man" of sorts.
Klaus: Oh yes, he is, properly, to be regarded as the Father of Science -- in general. Especially his vast work in biology has held up well -- Darwin was full of awe and admiration for Aristotle's biology.
The great tragedy is that soooo much of Ari's writings have been lost to us. Scholars estimate we only now possess 20-25% of all his writings. But what we have is gold, Jerry -- gold!
Klaus: Let me tell you a little AR-anecdote. Which I heard personally from one of the participants -- the late, great Allan Gotthelf. He was indubitably one of the world's greatest scholars on Aristotle. And he was also an Oist from the early 1960s -- who well knew AR for many years.
Klaus: And one day he mused aloud to AR thusly (rephrased, from my memory). "I have wondered who is the greatest philosopher in history? You (AR) or Aristotle? And my conclusion is, you."
AR then instantly replied: "Oh no, that is not so! For after all, I had Aristotle to build on -- while he had nobody."
Friend: What a curious sensation it must be to be in the presence of such a recognizably great mind as Rand's. I had made a similar comparison a few minutes ago to my coworker -- that Aristotle's mind was able to conceptualize so much, based purely on his own perception of reality. Sure, he had Plato to go on, but Platonic thought is so vastly different that it wasn't much of a springboard for him.
Klaus: Yes, Ari was Plato's best student -- for 20 years. Then he had the independence of mind to reject at least 90% of Plato -- and form his own ideas, vastly more in correspondence with reality.
Friend: I was unaware that so much of Aristotle's work had been lost. Do historians have an idea what happened?
Klaus: Well, I am no expert here. But it's rather the exception than the rule that old writings get lost! The ghastly multiple burnings of the library of Alexandria probably cost us a staggering number of great, classic texts.
Friend: For all we know, Aristotle could have written on the nature of man's rights, and the texts destroyed.
Klaus: It is not very likely, given what other writings we have of his regarding politics. It is simply hugely premature, I think, for him to have grasped the nature of rights. For Ayn Rand herself said that she could NOT have made her identifications in either ethics or politics -- prior to the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century. She needed that historical-empirical basis, she said -- to grasp the full nature of the role of reason in human existence.
Friend: Why is that?
Klaus: She needed ALL those facts, man. The Ancient Greeks, and all later thinkers until the 18th century -- they viewed Philosophy and Reason merely as some form of interesting speculation, for the idle, upper classes. They did not grasp the role of Reason in human survival. Even Aristotle made this error. He, too, was largely an ivory-chair thinker. Philosophy, Reason and Logic was _interesting_, sure -- but it was not concerned with the practical aspects of human life. Just the theoretical.
Friend: The only criticism I can give against Atlas Shrugged is Rand's ignorance of tactical combat, made evident during the final chapter of the novel. It bothers me. However, it is a minor criticism that doesn't change my perception of the book whatsoever.
Klaus: Hah! That was indubitably something which she knew nothing about! She knew nada. Just like me.
Friend: I hate that I must endure the mixed feelings I experience during this final chapter. Would that I could forget my military years during those few minutes!
Klaus: Poor you!
Friend: I would have liked for Rand to write a sequel.
Klaus: Oh no!!! This story is finished. Done. Wrapped up.
Friend: Yes, but to see how the future turns out . . . to read of a world untainted by an evil ruling class, an built and maintained by unbridled, rational capitalists.
Klaus: But you must please grasp that there is no DRAMATIC CONFLICT in that. Hence, it would be of zero interest to AR to write on that topic.
Friend: I suppose that is true. And she did provide a microcosm of her potential world in Galt's Gulch.
Klaus: Yes. But even that world has dramatic conflict: It is Dagny vs. . . . everyone else, especially Galt.
Friend: How are the taxes in Norway?
Klaus: Baaaaaaaaaaaaad.
Friend: I'm sure! Here in the states we have income taxes, payroll taxes, Health Care taxes, capital gains taxes, annual vehicle registration taxes, sales taxes . . . I doubt modern liberals ever take the time to add it all up! It almost makes me long for the days of old when there was but a single tax and a single tax collector.
Klaus: Yeah. My rough estimate for up here, corroborated by other locals, is that 70% of all our income goes down the tax-toilet.
Friend: Good God.
Klaus: Yeah.
Friend: Whale steak for the poor, whale dung for the tax payers, eh?
Klaus: Sort of.
Friend: What "benefits" do they try to offer in exhange for that obscene percentage?
Klaus: Security! For all! No matter how worthless you are! If someone has a "need" -- then our Great Society will take care of you. It's an arch-altruistic justification, seeping into everything here.
Friend: Every time I think of our altruistic death policies, the tragedy of the 20th Century Motor company always comes to mind.
Klaus: As it should!
Friend: A questioner once asked Rand, "Could you write a revised edition of ITOE for people with an IQ of 110, or will it remain available only to people with an IQ of 150?" Ha.
Klaus: Heh! This stuff is just inherently difficult. That book is as lucidly written as is inhumanly possible. When I first tried reading it, after having studied Oims for 4-5 months -- I understood nearly nada! So don't give up, we've all been there!
Friend: I predict my first attempt will be similar. Perhaps the inherent difficulty of Objectivism is one of the reasons many reject it.
Klaus: No, the difficulty is not the reason people give up. Rather, it is because Objectivism _challenges_ too many of their old ideas, ways, psychology, etc. It is the _rethinking_ of earlier ideas and the _re-evaluation_ of so many older values which cause so many to give up. For you see, in a very important way Objectivism is the very easiest philosophy to learn and understand -- since it is a _correct_ description of the world and man.
By analogy: It is far easier to learn evolution in biology -- than it is to "learn" Creationism. Because evolution connects the dots between ALL the known facts. Same with Objectivism. It doesn't require you to go through mental acrobatics -- in order to pseudo-fathom the non-existent.
Friend: An effective analogy. I like that last line very much, as well as the word "re-thinking." The basic principles of Objectivism are quite simple, yes. But learning about the 5 "pillars" (better word needed) and how they all relate and interact can be a daunting task. I would compare it to staring up at the Empire State Building from the street below.
Klaus: Don't worry about that! Just read what most interests you -- and in time you will integrate it all better and better.
Friend: Rand has stated that she wished Objectivism had developed more in the field of inductive reasoning. Have any Objectivist thinkers delved into the topic?
Klaus: Oh yes! LP has greatly developed that. Several tape courses, plus a book co-written with another -- David Harriman -- on induction in science. So we got induction covered reasonably well -- by LP and others developing the leads which AR left us.
Friend: I'm glad to hear that wasn't left out of the Oist library. It seems only the most mundane and unimportant topics have managed to escape Peikoff's focus.
Klaus: Oh, there is a lot of work still to be done by future elaborators.
Friend: I can't help but wonder if I may find myself among them someday.
Klaus: Feel free! I myself am developing ideas in the realm of art & visual perception. That is one of my main Life Tasks -- in the next decades.
Friend: Interesting. Have you developed any premises yet?
Klaus: I like to think so. In time, there will be a big book.
Friend: I would like to purchase such a book, when the time comes. Are you taking preorders?
Klaus: HAH! Ask me again in ten years. I am working on two big books, long-term. And have been doing for years.
Friend: Both dedicated to esthetics?
Klaus: No. One for the visual Arts. One for Philosophy in general.
Friend: You've published other works in the past, correct? Poetry and such?
Klaus: I have only formally published my poetry, so far. Plus all my graphics, natch!
Friend: Natch. I'll assume that to mean "naturally."
Klaus: Naturellement!
Friend: I don't speak you youngsters' lingo!
------------
Friend: Did you watch Alex Epstein's appearance during the climate hearing?
Klaus: Nope. Only read about this. I would PUKE too much at seeing and hearing that damn Senator-creature! I am a sensitive artist boy, you know -- not a sturdy military fighting man like you!
Friend: Ha! I was always too sensitive for the military anyway, at least for the front line role which I foolishly accepted when I was younger. I never fit in with those brutes!
It was quite a strong performance on the part of Alex. you can always tell when you start rustling jimmies -- people start to get rude! And boy, he did some fantastic jimmy rustling.
Klaus: Brutes, heh! My view, exactly. Of course, the worlds needs such brutes, too. I bet Alex did well. I might try seeing it, still.
Friend: It's not so bad to cause nausea, even for sensitive artists. Yes, the world certainly does need brutish types. Who would provide military service without them? I do not deny their importance, I merely acknowledge that I could never be one of them. The only side of me that embraces such a nature is my love of firearms!
Klaus: I don't even own or use guns. Too complicated up here, with damn rules and licenses!
Friend: I don't suppose you have a Scandinavian equivalent of our 2nd amendment, eh?
Klaus: Nope!
Friend: It is a sad state of affairs when so many countries deny their citizens a right to defend their lives and property. We complain here about government restrictions on firearms, but it's nothing compared to the plight of other nations. I can carry mine openly almost anywhere I want (this is foolish for several reasons, but the freedom is still there).
Klaus: Yes, please enjoy your freedoms! We slave-critters elsewhere can only envy you.
Friend: Is violent crime a problem in your... fjord?
Klaus: No. It's very safe and peaceful in most of Scandinavia. There are some nasty small, local areas in the big cities I would avoid. Those aside, no worries.
Friend: For what reason is it safe? What dominant cultural aspects of Scandinavia allow it to be so secure?
Klaus: I have no Great Insight on that issue. We are just peaceful, non-violent people up here. We're not the mad berserker vikings we were a thousand years ago!
Friend: My books came in the mail today. Our prediction for my initial impression of ITOE was correct.
Klaus: Heh! A bit too much to handle right now, eh? That is all right.
Friend: I may need to study for a few more years. This book by Biddle is relatively short, so I will likely read it first, and follow it with Objective Communication. I also plan to begin TF again, as a secondary pursuit.
Klaus: That's a fine plan. Biddle is a walk in the park compared to ITOE.
Friend: I've read several of his articles online, and he seems to be appropriate for new Oists. I plan to purchase a few more books by him, if he has written any (I haven't looked yet).
Klaus: Offhand, I think that is Biddle's only book. All the rest of his work is in his magazine & web site, "The Objective Standard".
Friend: Yes, that's where I've read his articles. I also discovered The Atlas Society, of which I disapprove.
Klaus: Good you disapprove of TAS! Then I won't have to waste our time dissuading you from going down that path.
Friend: It seems they promote "open" Objectivism. I'm new, but even I know that almost completely undermines the purpose of Objectivism.
Klaus: Very excellent of you to grasp that -- so early in the game.
Friend: Objectivism is based on a system of strict moral principles. One cannot set aside certain moral principles in order to "tolerate" or "consider" demonstrably false philosophies. Should we now consider the plausibility of sharia law? The Gulag system? It's unthinkable.
Klaus: Yes. But more to the point of the "open" Objectivism notion is that "Objectivism" is simply the name AR gave to her system of ideas. That is all there is to Objectivism: the truths identified and integrated by AR into her system. So while LP or HB or David Kelly might, quite conceivably, have great, new philosophical insights -- those insights cannot be copy-pasted into Objectivism.
I would even say, without hesitation, that if there are any FALSE philosophical ideas in the Objectivism system which AR gave to the world -- those falsehoods are ALSO part of Objectivism. Then other thinkers are later free to identify those ideas of her as false. But that does not mean Objectivism suddenly gets "revised" by other thinkers. For Objectivism is the philosophical system of AR -- in every respect.