About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for this Barbara.

John

Post 1

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I knew the basics of this story, but to see it written down so beautifully is very powerful. One truth like this will kill a thousand lies. Thank you, Barbara, for sharing it with everyone at Solo. It speaks volumes about Nathan and Ayn, and even more about the amazing human being who wrote it.

Post 2

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 10:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for this Barbara, and thanks to Linz for digging it out and putting it up.

Fred

Post 3

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

Thank you for posting this. From my own understanding of Objectivist Ethics, I would not have expected either Ayn Rand or NB to have reacted differently. When someone's life ceases to be a long-term value - as was the case for your mother - then happiness loses its normal function as a measuring instrument (Rand's "barometer") of how well one is doing at life. But, as long as a person remains conscious, that person's happiness, in itself, remains a positive value. In this context, in which the life of a person one loves is no longer a standard that can guide the achievement of that person's happiness, values derived from life as a standard must give way - to whatever can still maximize that person's happiness for what time she has left. This result would be counterintuitive for intrinsicists, but it is good Objectivism.

I would be grateful - to help in my own understanding of your and Ayn Rand's intellectual history - for a time frame for these events. And I am already most grateful for a powerful illustration of what loyalty to values means in reality.

Post 4

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I, for one, am not going to just sit here and not respond to these coming attacks.  I'm going to be telling my ARI-leaning local group exactly what I think is wrong with Leonard Peikoff as soon as the first one brings the book to a meeting.

Post 5

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 1:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Barbara, for making me a little happier today. :-)
(I've got too much empathy these days.)


Post 6

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 2:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Beautiful Barbara, thanks.

That  was really a two hanky story.

It is so wonderful that you would do this for your Mother so that she could die happy and not have to worry about you. Just writing this is getting to me <sniff>.


Post 7

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 5:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you so much, Barbara. This is the most moving piece I've ever read on SOLO.

Post 8

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara:

That was a very moving and timely statement. It must have been hard to write about it, even across the gulf of these years. Your mother was a very brave and wise woman, and I applaud Nathaniel and Ayn for the compassion that they showed.

Thank you for once again showing that those of us who live by reason are NOT monsters.

Ron Tobin
Philosophers Guild

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you Barbara for sharing this personal story.

Aquinas


Post 10

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thank you all, so very much. I am most grateful for your words and your support.

Adam, the events in my story happened in 1967.

Barbara

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 7:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I too am touched by Barbara's story, especially by Nathaniel's action in the event.

However, trying to put myself in Barbara's shoes, I am not sure that I would be able to do the same in similar situation. I might say something like "Sorry. But don't worry, I'll be all right."  Would this be so much worse for the dying person?

My own mother actually surprised me quite a few times. When my ex-husband and I decided to get a divorce, I also had a difficult time to bring it up with my parents, since I had always tried to paint for them a rosy picture of us. However, as soon as I told them, my mother immediately said "I've been waiting for this day. We are all behind you. Don't worry, you will find somebody else!" I can never lie to her. She always knows, or rather, feels.


Post 12

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 8:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hong, you wrote: "I might say something like 'Sorry. But don't worry, I'll be all right.'  Would this be so much worse for the dying person?"

It would have been worse for my mother. She would have known that the words you suggest mean little or nothing.

I am not suggesting, however, that everyone is obligated to do what I did in such a situation. I made my choice because of my knowledge of my mother; you would have to do the same,

Barbara


Post 13

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, as I quoted in some article I wrote, I can't remember where now. Maria Callas said the following about being a great singer: (paraphrase, really) "You study 8 hours a day, 7 days a week for 15 years, and when you walk out on the stage, forget everything."
I think that applies to the role of philosophy in life- learn everything you can, but trust yourself if you have a strong instinct that doesn't fit your first logical response.

Post 14

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

Was teaching Mill's UTILITARIANISM and came across a passage that made me think of your article. In the fifth last paragraph of chapter two, he writes, "Yet that even this rule [to tell the truth], sacred as it is, admits of possible exceptions, is acknowledged by all moralists the chief of which is when the withholding of some fact (as of information from a malefactor or of bad news from a person dangerously ill) would save an individual . . . from great and unmerited evil . . ."

Fred

Post 15

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This came up as a random article, so I'm reading it for the first time.

First, I want to say that I've rarely read such a moving piece of writing.

It is the same kind of writing that makes Barbara's "The Passion of Ayn Rand" one of the top biographies (perhaps the top) I've ever read -- and I've read hundreds -- as my wife can attest to since I'm a book packrat.

I'm sorry that Barbara or anyone else must go through what Barbara did with such a lively and indomitable spirit as her mom seems to have been.

That said, I don't think Barbara did her mom or herself justice in the tragic situation.

Barbara's heartbreak was obviously such that her first impulse was to spare her dying mother the great worry of Barbara's future happiness. That can be a great impulse, but the greater impulse is to always make reality your top guide in all matters -- and to be honest in our dealings with others in non-coercive situations. To have enough respect for their humanity and for ours to let reality be our guide and our genuine trading station. To share our concerns and thoughts on the real situation. To deal with the heartbreak that that honesty may invoke. To try to work through it and find a common ground of compassion or disappointment or resolution or trust or fulfillment. To share our true souls with those we love.

(I've found that trying to save other people pain by being dishonest is usually my trying to save myself the "pain" of not having to deal with the situation.)

If Barbara was in a position in which she had to be direct (and couldn't avoid telling the truth) and had shared the truth with her mother, then they could've discussed Barbara's plans for the future, as well as Nathaniel's always being there for her if she asks. The potential emotions and pain of this situation on Barbara's mother, if she could not accept it, would've been honest and something worth trying to deal with.

Whereas every minute of faking a situation "for somebody" niggles at the conscience -- because at least your subconscious knows what's going on.

It sounds as if Barbara's mother was an extraordinary person of great character. She might have surprised Barbara if she knew the truth. It may have added to the poignancy of the situation. It may have created an even greater bond. It may have gotten them to talking of things that they would not have discussed before. It may have given breadth to their relationship. It may have had her mom seeing Barbara in a new light.

But even if Barbara thought at the time that none of the above would've been possible, she still owed it to herself to deal directly with reality and enjoy the self-esteem that comes from having done so, from having been forthright and compassionate.


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dave, you wrote:
The potential emotions and pain of this situation on Barbara's mother, if she could not accept it, would've been honest and something worth trying to deal with.
(Mouth dropping open in disbelief...)

What if such disappointment shortened her life? And that is only one scenario.

The person who knew the full context was Barbara, and she is not a silly woman. I do not believe she somehow cheapened her mother's passing by letting her die happy with a lie - especially as time was running out too fast to do it any other way to ensure her mother's happiness.

I strongly hold that context must ALWAYS be a factor in following a "moral commandment." Sacrificing a lower value (like an ethical rule) to a higher value (like survival or a loved one's happiness in their dying moments) is not a sacrifice, it is a gain. And on an ethical scale, such a choice is rational (Ethical Choice Number One), therefore it is an even more important ethical choice than a blanket "honesty to others" rule.

Your "might have's" and "may have's" completely pale beside Barbara having lived with her mother all her life and by her simply having being there to judge what the situation was for herself.

Even Ayn Rand approved - and she was not a silly woman about these matters either.

Wow! Dayamm!

Michael

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 10:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David,

All Ic an say about this situation is that the ideas of "context" and "value" played the dominant role here. I don't find the situation to be one where honesty or justice would have been more appropriate. Context is everything.

Ethan


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This situation reminded me of the scene from The Fountainhead where Keating literally killed Heyer with his callous words. There is a certain respect and regard for someone's dignity in their last moments which is appropriate and, at that time, has a higher value than the type brutal honesty that could trigger a stroke, heart attack and actually cause the death of another human being. Maybe it was a little white lie Barbara told, but in the context of the situation, she was certainly right to tell her mother what she thought she wanted to hear.

* * * * * * * * *

“Get out!” said Keating, raising his voice, not to hear that sound. “Get out of the firm!” what do you want to stay for? You’re no good. You’ve never been any good.”

 

The yellow face at the edge of the table opened its mouth and made a wet, gurgling sound like a moan.

 

Keating sat easily, leaning forward, his knees spread apart, one elbow resting on his knee, the hand hanging down, swinging the letter.

 

“I…” Heyer choked “I…”

 

“Shut up! You’ve got nothing to say, except yes or no. Think fast now. I’m not here to argue with you.”

 

Heyer stopped trembling. A shadow cut diagonally across his face. Keating saw one eye that did not blink, and half a mouth open, the darkness flowing in through the hole, into the face, as if it were drowning.

 

“Answer me!” Keating screamed, frightened suddenly, “Why don’t you answer me?”

 

The half-face swayed and he saw the head lurch forward; it fell down on the table, and went on, and rolled to the floor, as if cut off; two of the cups fell after it, cracking softly to pieces on the carpet. The first thing Keating felt was relief to see that the body had followed the head and lay crumpled in a heap on the floor, intact.  There had been no sound; only the muffled, musical bursting of porcelain.

 

He’ll be furious, thought Keating, looking down at the cups. He had jumped to his feet, he was kneeling, gathering the pieces pointlessly; he saws that they were broken beyond repair. He knew he was thinking also, at the same time, that it had come, that second stroke they had been expecting, and that he would have to do something about it in a moment, but that it was alright, because Heyer would have to retire now.

 

Then he moved on his knees closer to Heyer’s body. He wondered why he did not want to touch it. “Mr. Heyer,” he called. His voice was soft, almost respectful. He lifted Heyer’s head cautiously. He let it drop. He heard no sound of its falling. He heard the hiccough in his own throat. Heyer was dead.



Post 19

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Et tu? Et tu? Et tu?

You gotta be joking me! This is repugnant!

It's perfectly acceptable to lie, a perfectly wise, just and compassionate and an Objectivist act for Barbara, Nathaniel, Ayn. It's a good call, I don't argue with that.

But people, this is not beautiful and it is not a time where "values derived from life as a standard must give way - to whatever can still maximize that person's happiness". Life is the standard of value for so ever long life lasts.

It is only compassionate, there is no such thing as tragic beauty or beautiful deceit. The degree by which you have to 'handle' or 'humour' somebody is a measure of your contempt for them. Thank goodness for Zang and Elmore not being quite so easily snared.

 As I've just said elsewhere,  Objectivist standards are unreserved and absolute. For people who don't have the nerve to let truth come as it may and cost what it will true beauty is forsaken for fake plastic.

 



.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.