RoR: Forum

... and yet, Atlas Shrugged remains mired in not 20th but 19th century technology -- steel mills, motors, oil, and bridges. With a wonderful new source of energy, these giants of philosophy, science, and industry can only power a car, a door, and a battleship. Even in 1958, anyone with a glimmer of industrial insight could have done much better. It never occured to Ayn Rand that the telegraph, telephone, and television transformed us, made us into people quantitatively and qualitiatively different from those of past ages.

If brevity is the soul of wit, then our one-liners make us the wittiest culture ever on this planet. Not entirely trivial, our alacrity makes a Constitutional promise of a "speedy" trial an unfortunate circumstance in a world where greater deliberation in advance might avoid a glacially slow appeals process.

Science fiction is conspicuous in its absence from Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory. Science fiction is not "about" this or that invention, but "about" how people live through change. Yet, Rand's universe is static. A mirror-image or anti-projection of Marxism, Rand posits a new world order in which constant invention and material improvement take place on a planet that has settled all poltiical discussions once and for all. (At the end of the book, the greatest jurist alive rewrites the U.S. Constitution, removing the "contradictions" from it. Does that mean that the electoral college is replaced with selection of the federal executive by a vote of the state governors? We never know.)

Philosophically, Objectivism is a mish-mash of conflicting ideas, supposedly integrated around the Law of Identity. When the glaring contradictions in Objectivism were pointed out, Ayn Rand retreated into explanations of aesthetic symbolism. The industrialist as the symbol of... the inventor as the symbol of... Yet, later, she called the pollution (which violates your right to private property) a crusader's plume -- again symbolism in lieu of substance.

Claiming to have formulated the ultimate Aristotlean library of syllogism and observation, Ayn Rand embraced Richard Nixon -- and denounced Hubert Humphery, not for his ideology, but because he looked like a Kewpie doll -- a poor ad hominem, especially for someone who claimed to be writing "for the new intellectual."

The many "cultural barometer" readings published in Ayn Rand's succession of magazines say less about how to spend your entertainment dollars in New York City than they do about Rand and her devotees. The newest Star Wars movie is always a source of angst for students of Objectivism, though the founder of Objectivism apparently did not notice the first of them.

Perhaps the deepest revelation of the true soul of an Objectivist comes from their constant hand-wringing over whether or not -- or to what extent, however measured -- the wider world notices Objectivism. These anti-social individualists have a curious need for public attention. That Star Wars contains no reference to the Law of Identity is not surprising -- except to an Objectivist. Oddly enough, they have nothing to say about the remake of Starsky and Hutch, or the two Princess Diaries films.

Post 1

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 7:21am

Michael Marotta ranted:

Philosophically, Objectivism is a mish-mash of conflicting ideas, supposedly integrated around the Law of Identity. When the glaring contradictions in Objectivism were pointed out, Ayn Rand retreated into explanations of aesthetic symbolism. The industrialist as the symbol of... the inventor as the symbol of... Yet, later, she called the pollution (which violates your right to private property) a crusader's plume -- again symbolism in lieu of substance.

Given your open hostility to Objectivism, why do you choose to spend so much time here?

Post 2

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 8:42am

I'd also like to point out, that there were two crucial aspects that let to Anakins embrace of the Dark Side. First it was his angst of the coming death of Padme, as you rightly pointed out, but his second problem with the Jedis was their constant oppression of his talent.
Anakin was clearly a talented user of the Force and perhaps one of the strongest Jedis, but still his fellow Jedis didn't allow him to show his ability and to perform it.
This abstinency of your own ability also drove him into the hands of the Sith Lord, whose lust for power allowed the unlimited exercise of the Force.

I think that Mr. Lucas wanted to tell a modern tale with all the modern contemporary feelings. He wrote the Rise of the Empire according to his perspective on Nixon and Hitler.
So, it is not surprising to see the Jedis as a sacrificial (although they plotted to take over the Republic!!!) selfless council, while the Sith/Emperor are/is an amoral greedy political leader/s.

I think you just cannot compare it with Objectivism, because he never intended to play it that way. Objectivism would most likely make not all too much sense, story-wise, in a Universe, where you can know that there is an afterlife you can live in.

Post 3

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 9:35am

Episode III spoiler alert!

I am a fan of Star Wars myself (not only the films but the novels and comics) and I agree with Max that it is unfair to judge the ethics of Star Wars from an Objectivist perspective. From what I know of the philosophy, the ethics are induced from the metaphysics. The metaphysics of this "galaxy far, far away" are very different from the metaphysics of our reality. As Max pointed out, in their reality, there is life after death. Anyone who dies becomes "one with the Force" and some (like Qui-Gon Jinn and later Obi-Wan and Yoda) learnt how to communicate with the living after their deaths. Emotions also have a more profound effect on those who are sensitive to the Force. For example, a Force sensitive person who taps into his anger and hate (the dark side) experiences physical changes (like when Palpatine attacks Mace Windu with Force lighning).

One thing the Star Wars novels touched upon was that the old Jedi of the Old Republic failed against the Sith because the Jedi were too dogmatic while the Sith were not afraid to change and adapt. The most glaring example is that the Jedi of the Old Republic were not allowed to fall in love. This includes love for a significant othere, so Jedi were not allowed to marry or have children. This includes love for parents, so Force sensitive children were taken from their parents as infants (except for Anakin, who as old enough to have grown up his mother).

Luke Skywalker changed that when he founded the New Jedi Order. Apprentices were accepted at any age into his Jedi Academy, and the Jedi were allowed to marry and have children. In the Jedi Academy, they abandoned the Master-Padawan relationship, in favor of an open-ended system where everyone was both teacher and learner. Luke Skywalker himself married another Jedi, and Han Solo and Princess Leia (who later trained as a Jedi) married and raised children who were trained as Jedi. In a way, Anakin Skywalker "brought balance to the Force" not only through his redemption but through his twin children. The Jedi of the Old Republic were made to detach themselves from life through selfless service (a paragon of altruism) while the Jedi of the New Republic lived life.

Post 4

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 9:47am

Joe,

This is an absolutely riveting review of the whole Star Wars series. Makes me want to watch all of them again and the final episode with a new view towards the points you raise. Your questions about Objectivism and immortality pique my interest and I will give that a lot of thought. If an Objectivist achieved virtual immortality how many situations considered as "low risk" now, be considered "emergency" situations? With different ethical considerations towards others then applied. Great article. Wish I could sanction it twice.

About "immortality". Our values do not die with us. Or do they? Or just some of them? Isn't this the main question? If in recognizing the fact of our mortality we use some of our life's resources furthering our "secondary values" [the ones that still exist after we die], if we achieve immortality do we then expend NO resources on these secondary values? Would people, for instance, not participate on a forum like this one because of the small probability that they might offend someone and that someone might search them out and kill them?

Post 5

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 9:52am

Master Jedi Byron Garcia wrote:

For example, a Force sensitive person who taps into his anger and hate (the dark side) experiences physical changes (like when Palpatine attacks Mace Windu with Force lightning).

I have sought an assembly of this puzzle with little satisfaction.

Web surfing has given me different explanations for the change in appearance from Palpatine to Sidious in Episode III:

Sidious used the Force to mask his true hideous appearance using the visage of Palpatine. The strain of fighting Mace Windu made him lose concentration and reveal his authentic appearance. The novel suggests that Anakin had never seen Palpatine's true face and lends this explanation credibility.
Sidious changed physical appearance because his deep, penetrating employment of the Dark Side of the Force to fight Mace Windu deformed him. You suggest this.
The reflection of the intense Sith lightning back onto Sidious deformed him. That same lightning did not deform Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi because it had a lower intensity. Anyone watching the movies without any other references might think this.

Please enlighten us, Master Jedi.

Post 6

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 10:08am

Fabulous read, artfully constructed.
(Edited by Robert Davison on 5/25, 10:23am)

Post 7

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 10:27am

To Michael Marotta,

Is this your work, or are you quoting someone?

Post 8

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 10:33am

I just moved from Philly to Seattle (safe and sound, and Elliot Bay is as beautiful as ever!) and don't have access to my own computer yet, so I have to keep this brief...but thank you Robert and Mike E. for your comments. Max, and Byron, I understand your points, it is not an Objectivist movie, to be sure. But just because it's set "long ago in a galaxy far, far, away" does not mean it should be divorced from our reality. This is not a movie for wookies or ewoks or droids (or Randroids!) or scruffy looking nerfherders. It is a movie of good and evil for human beings. (That is why the main heroes are human.) If it were a chronicle of alien ethics it would have little relevance to a human audience.

I can't understand Michael D.'s point in his post, but he does touch on the nature of sci fi, which is relevant here. Star Wars is not science fiction, strictly speaking. but space opera fantasy morality play. Fantasy in it's very nature depicts what does not exist, and its best application is when it is used as an allegory or metaphor for something in reality. That way, you don't get lost in the concrete example and instead see the abstract principle. (Example, the XMEN are about mutant repression, it could be seen as an allegory for race relations in the sixties, the civil rights movement, or even an allegory for homosexual opression, take your pick in oppressions. The point is that it becomes a voice for a larger abstraction, which, when one is opressed, can be a valuable tool when they could not otherwise speak out.)

For many, Star Wars is a substitute for religion (against Lucas's hope that it would instead bring people to study religion.) So while it may not be fair to judge the movie from a strictly Objectivist viewpoint, it is certainly fair to judge it on its own terms, which is the role of good and evil in human affairs. And if the message is to sacrifice one's self for others, or to forego love, or desire, then it fails as a philosophy for actual human beings on earth.

Roger Waters wrote "You don't have to be a Jew to disapprove of murder." (From "Too Much Rope", AMUSED TO DEATH.) One need not be an Objectivist to disapprove of self-sacrifice.

Now, the point of the piece, in the end, is to ask the question: What will be the Objectivist RESPONSE to this film, meaning, what will people of the Objectivist persuasion offer the world in response to a film that preaches self-sacrifice and rakes in millions of dollars in the process?

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 5/25, 10:43am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 5/25, 10:54am)

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 5/25, 10:54am)

Post 9

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 12:45pm

Joe M. [from review]: However, one thing should be kept in mind, and this one thing is the point of this review: that a fear of death does not equal a love of life.

Very beautifully said.

Joe M. [from thread]: Star Wars is not science fiction, strictly speaking[,] but space opera fantasy morality play.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Star Wars is not science fiction.

Joe M. [from thread]: Now, the point of the piece, in the end, is to ask the question: What will be the Objectivist RESPONSE to this film...

Hey! You can't have two "the point of"'s.

Michael M.: Science fiction is conspicuous in its absence from Ayn Rand's aesthetic theory.

Is science fiction conspicuous in any philosopher's aesthetic theory? If yes, I really want to know his name and what books/essays of his deal with SF aesthetics.

Michael M.: The newest Star Wars movie is always a source of angst for students of Objectivism.

I don't see anything like this. Personally, I don't think Star Wars has anything to do with Objectivism. I don't have any angst about the movie. Heck, I don't even have any angst about the Valliant book.

Michael M.: Philosophically, Objectivism is a mish-mash of conflicting ideas, supposedly integrated around the Law of Identity.

Objectivism has gaps that still need to be filled, and Rand had some quirky personal opinions, but to describe the philosophy as a "mish-mash of conflicting ideas" indicates a fundamental lack of ....

So what is your integrated philosophy?

Post 10

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 1:35pm

Luke "Skywalker" Setzer wrote: "Please enlighten us, Master Jedi."

I forgot what the "Revenge of the Sith" novel itself says (I'll check when I get home) but other sources have said that the dark side of the Force can take a toll on the physical body. It is the price paid for gaining power quickly. For example, in the "Knights of the Old Republic" video game, and the Wizards of the Coast d20 roleplaying game, the dark side changes your physical appearance.

I'll get back to you when I can quote more "official" sources. :-)

Post 11

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 3:27pm

this is some very interesting discussion on the subject, but on the straight subject of the objectivist view of the force I have to refer to two characters Count Dooku (Darth Tyranus) and Luke Skywalker.

Tyranus is an interesting example because of all the evidence leads the audience to believe that he is the man who works completely outside the standard views of the force. He realized the problems facing the force and the republic could not be handled by the dogmatic Jedi, so he studied use of the dark side and joined the sith in order to destroy it from within...(this is evidenced by the fact that other than his red lightsaber he shows no outward sign of being warped by the dark side) this failed miserably when Sideous discovered this (in the subtext of his death scene) Allowed his replacement to kill him. The flaw in this plan is the dark side ultimatly leads to violence murder and the like, though he did see that there were flaws on both ends of the spectrum. The primary difference here is that Luke knew the jedi would be a better starting point for a true order of goodness and light (though many more changes were needed here than in the sith ironically).

on a side note I found this comment interesting

Mike Erickson wrote:
If an Objectivist achieved virtual immortality how many situations considered as "low risk" now, be considered "emergency" situations? With different ethical considerations towards others then applied. Great article. Wish I could sanction it twice.

This tends to be one of the major themes in my fictional work, I find it encouraging hearing a comment like that... I might just have an audience yet.

---Landon

Post 12

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 6:44pm

Very nice analysis and a wonderful read.

Post 13

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 10:03pm

Byron, great post [#3]!! I've given you a sanction. You've very briefly provided a lot of new clarifyin information to those of us who have only seen the movies. I guess you got it from the novels. The "New Jedi Order" info makes me feel much better about those monkish damn Jedi. Thanks,

Phil

Post 14

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 8:14am

Landon, brilliant analysis of Count Dooku!

Thank you, Angela.

Num+, thank you...though I can have two main points, because A is not A in the Star Wars Universe...didn't you see Episode 1 and 1/2? :P

Michael M., Rand might not have mentioned sci fi directly, but she did touch on fantasy (favorably) in THE ART OF FICTION, in a way that applies to science fiction.

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 5/26, 8:17am)

Post 15

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 1:13pm

Ah yes, Episode 1�. Can't forget the severed forearm...

Post 16

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 2:21pm

Episode 1 and 1/2.

Didn't Lucas say there are three more films to be made, but they will be made digitally and not by him?

On top of that there is going to be a star wars series as well.

Oh damn! More space mysticism!

Post 17

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 5:58pm

Michael

I don't normally indulge in this sort of questioning (as I'm quite capable of making my own deductions) but Num++'s question to you is pertinent:

"So what is your integrated philosophy?"

So, what IS your philosophy, Michael?

Most Objectivists can relate quite clearly what they think in relation to metaphysics, epistemology, morality/ethics, politics, etc.

So, perhaps you'd like to educate me with a brief exposition of your philosophy?

If that sounds like a challenge then you're right, it is.

Well? Can you?

Ross Elliot

Post 18

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 10:58pm

I liked this movie, but there was really nothing of merit here to discuss regarding philosophy. Lucas is strangely contradictory in his presentation of Jedi and Sith ethics. He has Obi Wan say that "only a Sith thinks in absolutes" and yet it is obvious throughout the whole series that it is the Jedi who fight for absolute ideals. This was the dumbest comment in the entire Starwars series, but I suppose it can be seen as a final attempt to bring the Jedi in harmony with the postmodernist view of the "good guys" .

Based upon the rest of the series though it is obvious that Jedi principles are based upon altruism. They have a clear system of ethics based upon duty and self sacrifice. They have a faulty system of ethics, but they do in fact have a system. The Sith (as represented by Palpatine) are pragmatists who have no ethical principles except for the "will to power" by any means available. There is really nothing new here. This is Nietszche's slave morality vs. master morality. We have advanced far beyond this set of philosophical arguments and there is no need to take them seriously any longer. We already have at least the rudimentary arguments in place to know that there is another clear set of options.

- Jason

Post 19

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 6:24pm