RoR: Forum

Good luck finding a direct definition of hero in the Rand canon! For an in-depth exploration of the Rand hero in context of classical hero mythology, see "The Objectivist Hero Cycle" at http://jungianobjectivism.tripod.com/id9.html.

Post 41

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 1:44pm

Andy,

Since you have not taken the journeyman troll route, I tend to hope that you will eventually dig yourself out of trollsome habits. You may start by getting into the practice of reading the thread you post to. The answer to your question is in post 12.

Post 42

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:00pm

Adam,

Thank you for the information. Also, I appreciate your kindness in identifying my loathsome failings.

Andy

Post 43

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:12pm

Hi John,

Thanks for clarifying.

Jordan

Post 44

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:25pm

Glenn,

Andy, what you have done is pointed out what you see as a disservice.

True. If I hadn't seen it, I couldn't point it out.

Others on this thread, including me, disagree with you.

True. People don't always agree with me.

So, whether or not the disservice was from neglect or intent is a meaningless question.

True. That was my point when I focused upon the act instead of the motive behind it.

But, I'm curious; what do you think Rand's definition of a hero is?

I will tell you my definition which I attribute to what I learned from Miss Rand. A man becomes a hero when both rationality and virtue require him to act against adversity. Enduring adversity is not enough, because a man may have no choice but to slog through it. Acting virtuously is not enough either, because virtue is often easy when there are no hard choices. What makes a hero is rising to the occasion because virtue demands it even though rationality allows a man to turn away from the challenge.

Andy

Post 45

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:34pm

"Savage" is a racially charged word? NO. Culturally charged - Yes... and if the race is 'culturally charged', who's fault that? We are each of us individuals, not tribalists, however tribalistic minded jerks wish it.

Post 46

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 3:55pm

"I agree with you 100%, Phil, that this conversation can go down a long-winded tangential path on English usage that I have no more desire for than you do. ;-)"

Actually, I *LOVE* long-winded discussions of English usage...

Post 47

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 4:05pm

Actually, I *LOVE* long-winded discussions of English usage...

I stand corrected, Phil. ;-)

Andy

Post 48

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 4:13pm

"He is saying that moral judgment can more often be replaced with neutral terms like �beneficial� or �harmful,� rather than �good� or �evil.� He insists that we treat most people like a professional therapist should approach his (paying) clients. This is turning Objectivism on its head."

I didn't pick up what James Valliant is saying: that Branden takes the degree of tolerance and professional non-judgment that a therapist uses in trying to correct what may in part or in whole be a -moral- problem and suggests that ALL PEOPLE need to judge others that way in EVERY case.

If that is true (and unlike some people who shoot from the hip, I would have to read Branden carefully, first hand, at length, and in full context), then this would be a *major error or failure to pronounce judgment when it is due* on the part of Mr. Branden.

[Please don't tell me what you think he is doing on this; I would have to read it myself. Primarily primary sources, books like James and Barbara's would be very secondary for me.]

I still maintain that the error most Oists make is not to pronounce judgment -too seldom- on others, including often other Objectivists, but -too often- without enough first hand evidence.

Phil

Post 49

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 4:22pm

> How many chances do you give someone? [Walter, #28..on making a friend out of an adversary / continuing to engage someone with benevolence ]

I don't think there is any rule for this.

> he became belligerent, duplicitous, denigrating toward me, and attempted to intimidate me.

When I was manning the Objectivist tables at Ann Arbor in grad school, there must have been a hundred angry leftists a week. I found that they started out this way. The best ones, if you calmly and respectfully kept it cool and factual and pointed out mistakes, began to slow down and become more respectfully engaged. There is an art to this. So -initial- hostility is not always something in that situation to cut off all communication with. As the Talmud / Branden quote suggests, this is *exactly* the kind of situation it applies in.

> it seemed to me that he felt he had the upper hand as he became worse as the argument progressed.

If it gets worse - in the sense of the calmer and more respectful you get, the more hostile he gets, that is when I would walk away or turn back to my table and ignore the ranter. Again, this is in the context of manning a literature table on a college campus and in that age group and on an "inflammatory" or emotional topic.

One allows for more heat and emotions getting involved on emotional topics.

Your mileage may differ, as may your situation.

Phil

Post 50

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 5:11pm

Phil,

On page 296 of Judgment Day, Branden writes that, in contrast to Rand, who allegedly possessed �a strain of Manichaeism,� his own �tendency� was to see things purely �biologically,� that, in his own mind, the terms �good� and �evil��and these are his own words��merely designated that which was beneficial and harmful� to our well-being.� Taken together with his comments in �Benefits and Hazards,� where he suggests that �helping,� not �judging,� is the better policy�we can identify a consistent attack on moral judgment as one�s normal policy. In both, volition is interestingly de-emphasized--to protect feelings, one can only suppose, in order to be "constructive." So, in the passive voice now, "mistakes were made"... Branden is not saying merely�as Rand did so many times�that not only how, but when we judge others is a contextual matter, he is assailing the �Hazards� of Rand�s whole approach to moral judgment. This is what he says explicitly, but, by all means, continue your investigations.

Post 51

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:58pm

Mr. Valliant,
If one reads further down page 296 of Judgement Day, Dr. Branden says: "Of course I pronounced moral judgements, but I was never the passionate moralist - or moralizer - that Ayn was." , and then he explains why. Further on he quotes Ayn Rand regarding her view of this difference between them: "Your perspective comes from being a psychologist" and "It's not a fundamental difference between us."
From the tone of your two posts regarding this topic, I am more inclined to believe that Dr. Branden was spot on with regards to the hazards he mentioned in his essay. Your use of loaded words, your attempt at forced teaming by using "we", and "one can only suppose" is not only non-pursuasive, but a real turn-off for me. Also, I never get the sense, while reading anything of Dr. Branden's, that he is "complaining". Your comments however....

Post 52

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 7:52pm

Phil:

Your points are well taken. In my situation, I wish I could have simply walked away, but I was unable to do so. If the situation was such that I could have walked away, I most certainly would have. As well, I knew this person too well. I could not give him a "second chance." There is more history to this situation than I am reporting. He gave me plenty of evidence--through his history of behavior--for me not to believe he was honestly mistaken "deep down." Deep down, I think he was quite irrational. And to satisfy my assessment, I checked my perspective with many people. Luckily, I even had hard evidence that I was able to show others that exemplified his irrationality.

-Walter

Post 53

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:10pm

*coughing up hairball and hissing at the troll*

Troll Alert: Just a heads up for the newcomers. Valliant only comes out when he spots an opportunity to attack the Brandens.

Post 54

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:29pm

When you read a long and seemingly thorough analysis of Nathaniel Branden that concludes he is "evil," you might suspect a reductio ad absurdum of the analysis.

--Brant

Post 55

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:32pm

Andy, you wrote:

You gave me a tongue-lashing for allegedly putting words in Branden's mouth, and then you turn around and do that to me ...

You are right. I am sorry it appeared that way.

I presumed that you had read Ms. Hsieh's blog, Noodlefood, where she has called Nathaniel Branden evil, a bastard, a prick and many other similar names. As your stance is identical to hers on trying to see a despicable content in Branden's quote of the Talmud, which I cannot see for the life of me, I made an erroneous presumption. Once again, I am sorry. I stand corrected.

On what you call a disservice that Branden performed to the concept of hero, I roundly disagree for the reasons I have already mentioned. Also, where on earth is a repudiation of Ayn Rand's concept of hero by Branden? I have found nothing. When he does mention something like this quote, I have always presumed that any other qualities (like trying to win over an enemy) brought up are to be added to the concept, not negate it.

I did not see him advocate that the Talmud should replace Ayn Rand's ideas, but still, you treat this as if he negated Ayn Rand's concept of heroism.

Where?

Most all of his books defend reason, productive achievement, integrity, etc. The focus in on self esteem, but these are the very qualities of her concept of heroism.

(btw - Not tongue lashing. I don't discuss or argue under those terms. I am much kinder than that - except to trolls. What interests me are the ideas. I don't like using them to compete or establish superiority. That is so not me. I do tend to get emphatic, though. Let's just make it disagreement and stating reasons for such. And yes, I actually see much area where we do agree.)

Michael

Post 56

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:36pm

Steve Pilotte,

Right fucking on!

My own dear Kitten,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

Sanctions to both of you.

Edit - What the hell, Brant too. //;-)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/25, 8:37pm)

Post 57

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:52pm

Mr. Pilotte,

Branden also says that he now regrets many of the moral judgments he "pronounced" in those days, and notice the tense of the verb there. It is his current position that is in debate. "Further down" one does not find the concept of "evil" including the notion of an individual's volition.

Post 58

Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 10:14pm

"Sanctions to both of you...What the hell, Brant too."

Michael, don't become a Sanction Whore.

I don't want the value of those little gold statuettes to have dropped on the open market when I attempt to sell them.

Post 59

Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:24am