RoR: Forum

That's the first time I heard a criticism of Rand saying that she didn't think enough about aspects of politics and ethics. Imagine saying something like that about someone else:

Well, Shakespeare was a good playwrite and all, but he didn't think enough about what we all need to do with each other.

Well, Dostoyevski was a good novelist and all, but he didn't think enough about what we all need to do with each other.

Well, Mozart was pretty good at putting some music together in an esthetically appealing way, but he didn't think enough about what we all need to do with each other.

Well, Rembrandt was pretty good at laying down colors onto cloth, but he didn't think enough about what we all need to do with each other.

Well, Jesus was a pretty good prophet. Some say he may have even been the direct son of God (and the rest of us are, then, the "indirect" children of God), but he didn't think enough about what we all need to do with each other.

You know Confucius? Let me tell you about Confucius. Confucius was a genius before his time. Let's just say he was not want for wisdom. But, well, but there's this one thing that's been bothering me for some time about the man: he didn't think enough about what we all need to do with each other.

Ever hear of Bertrand Russell? Betrand Russell was a successful philosopher in that he made a living out of writing things that folks thought intelligent. But I ... I have got this one gripe with the man. I ... I don't know how to put this in a way that isn't unsettling, so I am going to just say it outright: he didn't think enough about what we all need to do with each other.

:-)

Ed

Post 1

Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 5:18pm

More on this:

Question: Do you think your experience with her work, philosophy, and life was different from those who read her in their adolescence?

Anne C. Heller: Yes. I appreciated Rand�s insights into the nature of power and her spectacular ability to integrate plot, character, and theme more than I might have when younger. And, I was less susceptible to her romantic celebration of heroic achievement.

--http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-World-She-Made/dp/0385513992

What does it even mean -- sense-of-life wise -- to be less susceptible to a romantic celebration of heroic achievement?

Ed

Post 2

Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 7:20pm

"I admire [Rand's] emphasis in everything she writes on individual liberties, and how fragile they can be. ... I do want to add that I'm not an admirer of her harshness, and her lack of thinking about the social contract -- what we all need to do with each other in order to live happily in society."

"...lack of thinking about the social contract"? The term "social contract" refers to the collectivist notion that society has somehow arrived at a contract among its various members even though they have not individually consented to it. As such, a social contract is incompatible with individual liberties. A contract to be binding must be entered into voluntarily by each and every party. So if Ms. Heller admires Rand's emphasis on individual liberties, then she cannot at the same time criticize her for not supporting a social contract.

Did Rand address "what we all need to do with each other in order to live happily in society"? Indeed she did. According to her, we need to respect each other's rights. We need to allow people the freedom to make their own choices. And we need to reject the idea that the needs of others are a claim on our lives and resources. Only if we do that, can we achieve a happy and prosperous society.

Post 3

Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 11:53pm

Well put, Bill.

Ed

Sunday, January 9, 2011 - 3:22pm

Thanks, Ed.

This whole idea of a "social contract" is trotted out time and again by advocates of governmental intervention as a justification for it. Yet not only is a social contract an oxymoron, since being bound by a contract requires a person's individual consent; but also a contract cannot be the basis for the rights that we have as members of society, since it's only because we have individual rights that we are obligated to abide by our contracts. Rights justify contractual agreements, contractual agreements do not justify rights.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/09, 3:36pm)

Post 5

Sunday, January 9, 2011 - 4:15pm