SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 20

Monday, October 10 - 8:24pm

Link

Edit

Bob, You're right, of course, and I think I alluded to the same when I said it was only one criterion.

Man, I think I would have had an easier time attacking Lanza! ;) But I like your passion for Ditko, so it's all good.

Your's Is No Disgrace!

Post 21

Monday, October 10 - 8:57pm

Link

Edit

> Ted (the Blue Beetle) Kord: "Tracey, most people aren't interested in truth or fact! Even if it's presented to them , they don't want to judge for themselves, especially if it goes against what others believe! They'd rather go along with what others say or popular opinions. It's safer for them! Left on their own, they'd rely on their likes or dislikes or feelings...anything but reason and logic! They live in a world of reality but choose to see and accept illusions. They create their own deadly specters, blindly accepting invisible, unproven beliefs that terrorize and their lives!" [Diko as per Bob]

Bob, this has absolutely nothing to do with Objectivism. Why? Because it is not philosophy. It is Ayn Rand's psychological view of the bulk of mankind - extremely negative and dishonest (although she was not consistent in this).

It also happens to be extremely false. And of all of the ideas AR had, this malevolent view of most people as evaders and dishonest and sheep....rather than unintelligent or comprachicoized or misled or confuse.... is the single most destructive one and the one which has damaged most Objectivists.

Philip Coates (this is not really on this thread, but you guys started it with Ditko, Ditko, Ditko..and the thread seems to have run down wrt its original purpose anyway)

...So I might as well say something extremely unpopular and controversial among Objectivists ... and give everyone a kick in the butt.

Post 22

Monday, October 10 - 10:42pm

Link

Edit

And of all of the ideas AR had, this malevolent view of most people as evaders and dishonest and sheep....rather than unintelligent or comprachicoized or misled or confuse.... is the single most destructive one and the one which has damaged most Objectivists.

Hey Phil,

AR is right on the money that most people are evaders and dishonest and sheep. Dishonesty is all around us. Most people are not committed to honesty. If you want to say they were comprachico-fied away from honesty that's fine but that would mean they had no choice in the matter. In any case, AR is correct on that.

In the 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged there are notes of AR that Mr. Peikoff included in the intro. She was developing Dagny's character in these notes and hit on where and when it would be appropriate for Dagny to extend her optimism. AR says that it is proper to maintain a benevolence toward life itself, i.e., mankind in general, but inappropriate to extend that optimism toward specific men. AR had seen a lot of evil men in her day and it wasn't malevolent of her to call them what they were: evaders, dishonest, sheep. Dagny's mistake all along was giving too much credit to knuckleheads like her brother.

I know zip about Ditko but what Bob typed in certainly hits on Objectivist tenets.

Post 23

Monday, October 10 - 11:57pm

Link

Edit

Ditko ROCKS.

Post 24

Tuesday, October 11 - 11:46am

Link

Edit

> AR had seen a lot of evil men in her day and it wasn't malevolent of her to call them what they were: evaders, dishonest, sheep. [Lance]

She grew up in Russia which never experienced an Enlightenment and experienced millennia of mysticism and force. It colored her view of people, as it would for anyone....

Most people are more like either Eddie Willers or Cherryl Brooks, not James Taggart. Many people support evil causes or evil people because they are duped, naive, or painted rosy pictures of certain ideas like altrusm in the schools. Think of Cherryl's mistaken view of James Taggart. She wasn't dishonest, merely dumb.

> If you want to say they were comprachico-fied away from honesty...

No, that's not the meaning of the comprachicos in her essay (which is worth rereading). Tthe educational system didn't make them dishonest, it misled and miseducated them...and damaged their ability to think, especially about philosophical or abstract issues regarding man and society...and themselves.

Here's the best way to think about the morality of the average man. Think of yourself before you were lucky enough to stumble on Rand. Perhaps you advocated or were in the grip of religion or socialism. Were you dishonest? Did you suddenly become a non-evader or a non-sheep once you read Atlas?

(Just to take one example, that people could live non-sacrificially and freedom not degenerate into chaos was hardly obvious throughout human history. Or Rand's point that no one could have clearly understood or defended capitalism consistently prior to the industrial revolution. It's not dishonesty to fail to be a genius.)

Lack of knowledge is lack of knowledge. Miseducation is miseducation.

It's not lack of ethics or character.

Philip Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/11, 12:01pm)

Post 25

Tuesday, October 11 - 4:19pm

Link

Edit

Ted (the Blue Beetle) Kord: "Tracey, most people aren't interested in truth or fact! Even if it's presented to them , they don't want to judge for themselves, especially if it goes against what others believe! They'd rather go along with what others say or popular opinions. It's safer for them! Left on their own, they'd rely on their likes or dislikes or feelings...anything but reason and logic! They live in a world of reality but choose to see and accept illusions. They create their own deadly specters, blindly accepting invisible, unproven beliefs that terrorize and rule their lives!"

Philip, I think "many" or "some" people would be accurate as opposed to "most" people.

BTW, I edited this quote to add the word "rule" which I had inadvertently left out in my original post.

Post 26

Tuesday, October 11 - 4:51pm

Link

Edit

Phil,

She grew up in Russia which never experienced an Enlightenment and experienced millennia of mysticism and force. It colored her view of people, as it would for anyone....

A striking passage in The Art of Fiction (p. 159) confirms your point.

Incidentally, there is no word in English to denote a worthless man, except for bastard. Scoundrel, blackguard, and rotter are more English than American; and people never use them; they are antiquated and literary. I think this is one reason why bastard became formal English (it is no longer an obscenity and does not involve illegitimate birth, although that is the root of the word). The language did not have a word to express a negative value judgment on a man.

In Russian, I can think of ten or twelve words on the order of the English bastard; and there is even more polite usage: words that can be used in a drawing room--all of them expressions of contempt for a man's moral character. This is is a significant indication of the opposite metaphysics and morality of the two languages.

Rand actually referred to "whining rotters" at least once in print; at best, the phrase comes across as quaint to American readers. In one of his NBI-period essays, Nathaniel Branden used "scoundrel"--which reads oddly, too. Just saying "bastard" would have been more effective.

Her conclusion:

The number of words to express human evil is much greater in other languages than in [American] English. For that, I give great credit to America.

In other words, she thought that the American point of view about other people's moral worth was better, and indicative of a healthier culture... but probably kept wishing she could use 10 or 12 different words for morally worthless people.

Robert Campbell

Post 27

Tuesday, October 11 - 4:56pm

Link

Edit

> Philip, I think "many" or "some" people would be accurate as opposed to "most" people. [Bob P]

If it were 'many' rather than 'most', yes, then I'd agree with the quote as a description of the real world.

But I think it is an understandable quote for a comic book character, a fictional hero in a novel.

Still a bit too malevolent a focus for my taste. Even for a fictional hero. (How does it advance the story? I'd have to read it.) Instead of pissing and moaning about all the bad people, seek out the best and the brightest ones and work with them. Life is too short to endlessly complain about the evil if that takes away from creating enclaves of the good.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/11, 5:20pm)

Post 28

Tuesday, October 11 - 5:44pm

Link

Edit

Great points and quotes, Robert C! I'm so glad you're still on this list..even on the occasions where I don't agree with you.

> she thought that the American point of view about other people's moral worth was better, and indicative of a healthier culture... but probably kept wishing she could use 10 or 12 different words for morally worthless people.

Jeez, I can think of quite a few really good ones!

Maybe I moved in much lower-level circles in New York than she did:

Scum. Bottom-Feeder. Excrement. Worthless Piece of @#%%. SOB. NGSOB.

Usually though, she's right. You don't have just one sweeping word...you have to conjoin a series of adjectives or nouns which specify the exact type of villainy... or the virtue that is lacking:

Coward. Pussy. Wimp. Mean-spirited. Vicious. Lying. Thieving. Parasite. Mediocrity...

What about Lowlife?

.... I'm so glad we had this conversation.

Now that I got **that** out of my system I can slip back into the mask of Benevolent Phil.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/11, 5:50pm)

Post 29

Tuesday, October 11 - 7:47pm

Link

Edit

"Still a bit too malevolent a focus for my taste. Even for a fictional hero. (How does it advance the story? I'd have to read it.) Instead of pissing and moaning about all the bad people, seek out the best and the brightest ones and work with them. Life is too short to endlessly complain about the evil if that takes away from creating enclaves of the good."

Interesting, Phil. This is certainly the Roarkian way of doing things, and even the Galtian way. But if there was no conflict for these characters, there'd be no story. (Even if the conflict is not directly theirs, the conflict of characters like Dominique and Dagny revolve around what you suggest above.)

Now, with Ditko, I think he realized that in order to have a story, he needed conflict, or else he'd just be drawing lots of pictures. So for his conflict, he chose those situations where the good people are forced to deal with the bad people. For example, reporter Vic Sage has a circle of rational friends. But in his line of work, he witnesses much corruption and fraud, and violence, to which he is often asked to cover up. His integrity won't let him, but his hands are tied by normal measures. So the reporter dons the identity of the Question and confronts the malevolence by calling it was it is; he reports the reality of the corruption. His motive is not malevolence, but respect for reality. That's what all Ditko's later characters do. This is what Galt and Roark do. Because if it were simply enough to say "But I don't think of you," and start a Galt's gulch, there'd be no conflict and no story. But that conflict exists, and Rand and Ditko aren't Utopian dreamers, so unfortunately, the pissing and moaning are needed at times, followed by action. Ditko gives that action to his heroes.

But to consider your point: Rand and Ditko are storytellers, and depend on conflict. Rand has even admitted to creating the most conflict possible for her characters to overcome. Fine for fiction. But if a writer is basing the conflict on reality, is there a threat of over-inflating that reality to keep themselves in a job? (Rand is not unique, we have passed the millenium and yet we are subjected to STILL more apocalyptic LEFT BEHIND books. REPENT NOW!). Are Rand and Ditko overstating the evils in the world, or are they seeing things more clearly?
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/11, 7:51pm)

Post 30

Tuesday, October 11 - 10:16pm

Link

Edit

Nathaniel Branden has my vote.

Post 31

Tuesday, October 11 - 10:58pm

Link

Edit

Phil, I'm disagreeing with you lock, stock and barrel.

She grew up in Russia which never experienced an Enlightenment and experienced millennia of mysticism and force. It colored her view of people, as it would for anyone....

Think of what you're saying here. You claim that because Rand grew up as a Russian girl in the early 1900's she was unable to identify reality. Her perception was colored, according to your claim, and she was therefore unfit for the job at hand.

And to take it to its logical end-who in this world has an uncolored view of people?

> If you want to say they were comprachico-fied away from honesty...(Lance)

No, that's not the meaning of the comprachicos in her essay (which is worth rereading). Tthe educational system didn't make them dishonest, it misled and miseducated them...and damaged their ability to think, especially about philosophical or abstract issues regarding man and society...and themselves.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Phil. You made the claim about the comprachicos. Every individual is responsible for identifying the comprachicos and establishing their own methods. It seems that this is what you deny.

As somewhat of an aside, how would a person with a damaged mind develop the skill of honesty?

Here's the best way to think about the morality of the average man. Think of yourself before you were lucky enough to stumble on Rand.
sdsd

This is especially dislike. I didn't "stumble" onto Rand. I fought tooth and nail to find her. I was honest with myself in the extreme and refused to give up on my belief that the ways of those around me were not quite right.

Post 32

Wednesday, October 12 - 12:02am

Link

Edit

Who is the highest achieving Objectivist? How do we interpret "highest achieving Objectivist"?

I'd look for somebody who took Rand's work, and as she did, reach out to the masses and hit them hard where it hurts, making them consider these radical ideas. I would not choose somebody who developed an academic case for objectivism (eg Sciabarra), or enhanced a section of her work (N. Branden), as deserving of accolades these accomplishments may be.

No, I'd choose somebody who took what Rand did and scream it out loud, reaching large amounts of people in a non-diluted, rational, yet passionate manner.

So, of course, at the risk of sounding sycophantic...

I'll nominate Lindsay Perigo. He was broadcasted to a near national audience in New Zealand on a popular (mainstream) talk back show. He started an objectivist libertarian party that is still active and getting stronger. He provided the impetus for this site, and contributes energy to it every day.

I suspect that if you could do a count on how many individuals were introduced to the ideas of objectivism by any one individual, Linz would come a distant second to Ayn Rand.

Not bad for a drunk :)

Post 33

Sunday, October 23 - 3:34pm

Link

Edit

I've been away from the computer for a couple weeks now so I'm just now seeing all this.

Bob, sorry if I offended. Elsewhere I did state that he's the second most successful Objectivist fiction writer by about a mile though. I just feel sad knowing how much he did and how much more he could have done (for his own gain as well as advancing Objectivism). I get this way every time I hear about Todd McFarlane's "million dollar balls" or from something I read from Frank Miller interview once:

"Back then especially there was just no intellectual property in comics. Doctor Octopus was just this character that you dusted off and got to play with sometimes he wasn't something that was created by someone."

Thinking of that quote and guys like Bill Finger who created everything good about Batman but died penniless and applying it to someone as great as Ditko... I'm almost crying as I write it. Same way I cry every time I see his name posted on the Spider-man films or whenever I see the phrase "Superman created by Joe Schuster and Jerry Siegal" and I know how hard they fought to make that happen. I know Ditko didn't get it anywhere near as badly as some guys but it turns my stomach thinking he could ever even come close.

AS to Phil's arguments I haven't read the story in question but I've read enough of his work to get the context of the characters. His characters are somewhere on the scale between Roark and Fransisco. They see their work as an end in itself and THEY are going to keep on living THEIR lives regardless of whether the whole world goes to hell around them and they are the last rational person on earth. If they find another great person in the world they can connect with great. If not, they have a life to live.

And to top it off his characters were usually super-heroes and crime reporters. Ask a school principal, cop, or any other person whose job it is to deal with the worst the world has to offer his opinion of the general status of people and that's probably the answer you'll get. He doesn't always seek out the best and the brightest, he too busy stoping and punishing the weakest and the worst.

Another factor in this might have been that Ditko never wrote dialogue for anything at the major (and semi-major) companies like Charlton. They either paired him up with someone who didn't quite understand Ditko's values and blindly tried to make what they wrote match closely enough to Ditko's plot and values that they wouldn't get a nasty letter, or someone who just didn't care about it and went in whatever direction he felt like. One of the worst cases of this was Shade the Changing man #1 where it seems the scripter (dialogue writer) seemed to only understand that Ditko liked A LOT of dialogue and interior monologue on the page regardless of whether or not it was necessary or even advanced the story (it was so bad that it netted an apology a few issues later).

I'm not going to lie here, there are many great Objectivists who've done many great things. But I know I wouldn't even be an Objectivist without this amazing creator. A lot of the most important things and values in my life were taught to me by this man. And I know I'm not alone.

---Landon

Who is the highest achieving Objectivist? (Besides Ayn Rand....)