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 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What an evil, miserable, ugly sentiment.

Ted

Post 1

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the quote, Hong.

Tolstoy was a true genuis, and Anna Karenina a masterpiece of literature.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 5/07, 7:26pm)


Post 2

Monday, May 7, 2007 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is there some context I am missing? The quote seems to imply that child-rearing is for the masses, like mindless beasts, while the best should do what? Not reproduce their kind? The ultimate embodiment of this is what? The harem? The welfare mother? Sub-Saharan Africa?

I haven't read the novel, only Tolstoy's non-fiction. Rand did praise Tolstoy's style. But the morality of this novel is repulsive and that of this quote seems indefensible. Am I mistaken?

"Woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men." - Adolph Hitler

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/07, 8:51pm)


Post 3

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 8:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey George!
Thanks for the comment! I recently read Anna Karenina and like it a lot more than when I first read it 20 years ago. I agree with you completely about Tolstoy's genius. I know people usually know the opening of AK ("Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"), but it was the above quote that made me almost fall off my chair. I've never heard a better justification from any Objectivist who choose to be childless! ;-)
 
Ted,
You may know that Tolstoy himself sired a dozen or so children, and he couldn't even remember all their names!
 
I am also curious that since you haven't read AK, how could you say that "the morality of this novel is repulsive"?!
 
PS. Yes, there is a context to this quote. It was spoken by Levin's bachelor friend Katavasov, a professor of natural sciences known for his amusing originality, at Levin's bachelor party before his wedding.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/08, 8:51am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 9:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If every Objectivist is childless (and it's almost the case right now anyway), what is going to be the future of the movement?


Post 5

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Hong. 

My mother read the novel, which she described as dreadful.  She much preferred War and Peace.  And Rand specifically discussed its theme, I believe it's in Romantic Manifesto.  Rand said that the writing was brilliant, but the moral idea implied by the theme was repulsive.  I took exception to the quote for the reason that Chris Baker did, as well as the implication that child-bearing is only for the backward or is an appropriate thing to be left to the backward.  The best and brightest should have children or support children (as I do my nephew) and children deserve the attention of the best and brightest.

Ted


Post 6

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't see anything particularly heroic or good about having children.  Society pisses me off with this noise, though "Oooh, you had a baby!  Congratulations!"  WTF?  So, lemme get this straight, I do something like, say, write a great article or piece of work, and I have to work at getting achievement (not that I care; I am not a second-hander), but some people forget the protection and suddenly it's all sunshines and rainbows?

Bah to all that.  There's nothing all that special about doing what billions of people already do.  Not an accomplishment. I hate when it gets called "the world's hardest/most unrewarded/whatever job...being a mommy!"  YUCK.


Post 7

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 10:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> The best and brightest should have children...

I am glad that you think that, Ted. But, what about those who don't have children? Are they not the best and brightest?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 10:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Carl Sagan had no children. Osama bin Laden has 12-24, but nobody seems to be sure.

When I think about numbers like that, I naturally wonder what kind of world this will be in 100 years.

Read "Why Europe Chooses Extinction":

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.html

Demographics is destiny. Never in recorded history have prosperous and peaceful nations chosen to disappear from the face of the earth. Yet that is what the Europeans have chosen to do. Back in 1348 Europe suffered the Black Death, a combination of bubonic plague and likely a form of mad cow disease, observes American Enterprise Institute scholar Ben Wattenberg. "The plague reduced the estimated European population by about a third. In the next 50 years, Europe's population will relive - in slow motion - that plague demography, losing about a fifth of its population by 2050 and more as the decades roll on."

In 200 years, French and German will be spoken exclusively in hell. What has brought about this collective suicide, which mocks all we thought we knew about the instinct for self-preservation? The chattering classes have nothing to say about the most unique and significant change in our times. Yet the great political and economic shifts of modern times are demographic in origin. Three examples suffice:

1) The great trans-Atlantic rift. Europeans are pacifists, not merely in the Persian Gulf, but on their own Balkans doorstep. If they cannot be bothered to reproduce, why should any European soldier sacrifice himself for future generations that never will be born?

2) The shift in global capital flows to the United States: old people lend money to young people. The aging populations of Europe and Japan lend money to younger people in the US.

3) The deflation danger. To illustrate, an economist of my acquaintance proposes a thought experiment. Suppose by a magic spell all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom instantaneously aged by 30 years. What would be the effect on the current account balance, the rate of interest, the price level and the exchange rate? (Answer at the end of this essay).

Little enough has been said about the "how" but almost nothing about the "why" of Europe's demographic suicide. Suicidal behavior is common among (for example) stone-age tribes who have encountered the modern world. One can extend this example to Tamil or Arab suicide bombers (See
Live and Let Die, Asia Times Online, April 13, 2002). But the Europeans are the modern world. Have the Europeans taken to heart existentialism's complaint that man is alone in a chaotic universe in which life has no ultimate meaning, and that man responds to the anxiety about death by embracing death?

Detest as I might the whole existentialist tribe, there is a grain of truth here, and it bears on a parallel development, that is, the death of European Christianity. Fifty-three percent of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives, compared with 16 percent, 14 percent and 13 percent respectively of the British, French and Germans, according to a 1997 University of Michigan survey. Here I draw on the German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929), an existentialist of sorts. Few Asians (including Jews) can make sense of Christianity's core doctrine, namely, original sin, handed down to all humans from Adam and Eve. Original sin motivates God's self-sacrifice on the cross to remove this stain from mankind; without it, Jesus was just an itinerant preacher with a knack for anecdotes.

All religion, Rosenzweig argued, responds to man's anxiety in the face of death (against which philosophy is like a child stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting, "I can't hear you!"). The pagans of old faced death with the confidence that their race would continue. But tribes and nations anticipate their own extinction just as individuals anticipate their own death, he added: "The love of the nations for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with the presentiment of death." Each nation, he wrote, knows that some day other peoples will occupy their lands, and their language and culture will be interred in dusty books.

The early Christian Church encountered a great extinction of peoples and their cultures through the rise and fall of the Alexandrine and Roman empires. Who now remembers the Lusitani, the Illyrians, the Sicani, the Quadians, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepidians, Herulians, Pannonians and a thousand other tribes of Roman times? As nations faced extinction, individuals within these nations came face to face with their own mortality. Christianity offered an answer: the Church called individuals out of the nations and offered them salvation in the form of a life beyond the grave. The Gentiles (as the Church called them) embraced original sin, which to them simply meant the sin of having been born Gentile, that is, to a culture doomed to extinction. (The Jews, who think of themselves as an eternal people, were having none of it).

In one respect, Christianity was an enormous success. Its original heartland in the Near East, Asia Minor and Greece fell to Islam, but even while Arabs rode victorious over St Paul's missionary trail, the Church converted the barbarians of Europe. Christianity made possible the assimilation of thousands of doomed tribes into what became European nations. Something similar is at work in Africa, the only place in the world where Christianity enjoys rapid growth. Yet Christianity's weakness, Rosenzweig added, lay in the devil's bargain it made with the old paganism. Christianity's salvation lay beyond the grave, in the wispy ether of heavenly reward. Humans require something to hang on to this side of the grave. By providing the pagans with a humanized God (and a humanized mother of God and a host of saints), Christianity allowed the pagans to continue to worship their own image. Germans worship a blond Jesus, Spaniards worship a dark-haired Jesus, Mexicans worship the dark Virgin of Guadalupe, and so forth. The result, wrote Rosenzweig, is that Christians "are forever torn between Jesus and [the medieval pagan hero] Siegfried".

At the political level, Christianity sought to suppress Siegfried in favor of Christ through the device of the universal empire, the suppression of nationality by the aristocracy and Church. The lid kept blowing off the pot. Just when the Habsburgs brought the universal empire to its peak of power in 1519 under Charles V, controlling Austria, Spain and the Netherlands, Germany revolted under the banner of Reformation. There followed a century and a half of religious wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) that wiped out more than half the population of Central Europe. France under Cardinal Richilieu (See
The Sacred Heart of Darkness, Asia Times Online, February 11, 2003) gave a fatal twist to the Christian idea. Instead of universal empire, the French nation would be the standard-bearer for Christendom, such that French national interests stood in place of divine providence.

All Europe caught the French disease, substituting the warrior Siegfried for the crucified God. Christianity's inner pagan ran amok. A second Thirty Years War (1914-1944) gave unlimited vent to Europe's pagan impulses and drowned them in blood. The unfortunate Rosenzweig, who saw the faultlines in Christian civilization so clearly, died hoping that Europe still would embrace its Jewish population as a counterweight against its destructive pagan self. It never occurred to him that Europe would choose destruction and take its Jews with it. Siegfried triumphed over Christ during World War I. No shred of credibility was left in the Christian idea of souls called out of the nations for salvation beyond the grave. In 1914 Europe's soldiers still fought under the illusion of a God that favored their nation. Germany fought World War II under the banner of revived paganism.

For today's Europeans, there is no consolation, neither the old pagan continuity of national culture, nor the Christian continuity into the hereafter. The French know that Victor Hugo, Gauloise cigarettes, Chateau Lafitte and Impressionist painters one day will become a matter of antiquarian curiosity. The Germans know that no one but bored schoolboys will read Goethe two centuries hence, like Pindar. They have no ambition but to die quietly, no concerns except for those amusements which might reduce boredom and anxiety en route to the grave. They have no passions except hatred born of envy. They hate America, a new kind of universality that succeeded where the old Christian empire failed. They hate Israel, which makes the Jewish people appear all the more eternal in stark contrast to Europe's morbid temporality. They will pass out of history unmourned even by themselves.

[Solution to the thought-experiment above: if the entire population of the UK instantaneously ages 30 years, it will spend less and save more for retirement. That is, demand will shift from present goods to future goods, that is, securities. The price level of present goods falls. The price of future goods rises, that is, the compensation for waiting for the future declines, and the rate of interest falls. The suddenly-aged population trades surplus present goods for future goods, that is, exports goods and purchases securities with the proceeds, shifting the current account balance to surplus. The exchange rate will rise. In other words, we have Japan.]

(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)


Post 9

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 3:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If every Objectivist is childless (and it's almost the case right now anyway), what is going to be the future of the movement?
Chris, neither of my parents were Objectivist but I consider myself to be (or at least close to it). So becoming  an Objectivist or otherwise enlightened human being has nothing to do with genetics.


Post 10

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

Chris may have been referring to the fact that parents tend to raise their children to adopt their religion / philosophy. If Objectivists don't have kids, they can't do that. Nothing to do with genetics.

Although incidentially, most human behavioural traits are partly heritable, religiousity and political affilition included (so I hear, I haven't examined the evidence in detail, but it's quite plausible.) I would be very surprised if the tendency to become an Objectivist wasn't partially under genetic influence.

Post 11

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 3:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've heard of a "God gene", but never a "Objectivist gene"!

Post 12

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 3:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, according to Rand, herself, motherhood is "a hateful duty". 

If I had to put my finger on why the technified world fails to reproduce but the primitive world doesn't, I would say it has to do with what psychologists call "locus of control". 

By and large, technified people place the burden of control of things on themselves much more than the primitive world does.  The "west" wants everything to be perfect, according to their pre-formed conceptualisations of things.  The primitive world does not... they do not particularly assume much responsibility for their destiny, and abdicate much more control to nature and the whims of some given god.  They live more with abandon to "higher powers".

I think this is why they breed more.  They just let some external force control things much more than we do. 

(But what do I know... I'm just "unstable".) 


Post 13

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

Chris may have been referring to the fact that parents tend to raise their children to adopt their religion / philosophy. If Objectivists don't have kids, they can't do that. Nothing to do with genetics.
Although that is true a lot of the times, it is not a corollary. Both of my parents are Greek Orthodox Christians and registered democrats, I'm an atheist Objectivist that despises liberals. And they despise what I believe in.  My upbringing would suggest I not become an Objectivist but that is not the case.


Although incidentially, most human behavioural traits are partly heritable, religiousity and political affilition included (so I hear, I haven't examined the evidence in detail, but it's quite plausible.) I would be very surprised if the tendency to become an Objectivist wasn't partially under genetic influence.
I highly doubt that. Our capacity for free will overcomes whatever deterministic behaviors our genes are encoded with. And to extrapolate genetic behavior to highly abstract political and religious principles and thought is a bit of a stretch to say the least.



 


Post 14

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, since I lack a uterus, I doubt I'll ever be a parent myself. I certainly won't father a child that I don't expect to raise or do the Jim McGreevy dance. If I meet a woman with whom I fall in love and can sire children, I'll have half a dozen.

Of course simply having children in and of itself is no special virtue (power) above the ability of an animal. And being sterile is no sin. Neither is being ill-disposed to parenthood, and realizing that fact, and acting accordingly. If I had had STD as a father, I'd have opted for abortion as a fetus myself, as sure as he'd've aborted me.

Rand made her position on the matter quite clear, and I agree with her 100% as stated in Atlas Shrugged and elsewhere.

My problem here is that out of context your quote seems to advocate leaving childrearing to only the otherwise useless. I was actually surprised to see that it was you who had posted it, since I get the impression you like kids. Maybe the quote comes out better in context?

Ted

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is the conversation that produced this quote.

Post 16

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Mike. So the full quote is:

"Oh, no, I'm not an enemy of matrimony. I'm in favor of division of labor. People who can do nothing else ought to rear people while the rest work for their happiness and enlightenment. That's how I look at it. To muddle up two trades is the error of the amateur; I'm not one of their number."

This is either pure sarcasm, [a division between the married and unmarried] or it's no different from Hitler's statement [a division between husbands and wives]:

"Woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men."

It's either merely vicious cynical nonsense or it's truly disgusting. Who here holds his own mother, spouse or parents in such contempt?

If this man's a villain, let's hear a noble sentiment. Otherwise, I'll wait for the movie.

Ted

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 10:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not to be rude, but the quote in question made about as much sense as one of my first UML layouts for a program: all ugly and completely pointless.

-- Brede
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 5/08, 10:32pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 10:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not trying to be rude either. It's the evaluation implied by selecting this quote to post where we ususally celebrate profound or noble sentiments that makes me wonder. Perhaps Hong just likes just those words in some way that has meaning for her and that isn't apparent to me. In the context, it was like something Twoohey said to Peter to prevent him from marrying her niece when they might have achieved some mediocre happiness instead of her becoming some bitter fat old social worker and him a failed public disgrace. I just don't see how to interpret it well at all. And so I see it as the painting of the woman with a coldsore.

Ted






Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 - 10:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Considering child rearing is the most important task one can take upon, either the rearing of one's own biological children or that of adoptive children, or children of one of your own family members. It's those first moments in our life that define the rest of our existence forever, one should never make the task look vulgar nor easy, because neither are true and are a slap in the face of every mother, father, uncle, aunt, godfather, godmother, and etc that has taken on this task.

-- Brede

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.