|
6/28/07
Dear 1585:
First off, love the site. Your
articles are like reading new
thoughts of my own I hadn't quite developed yet, for the most part.
But
there
is something that nags at me. A few months ago, I probably
wouldn't
have taken
any notice, but I wasn't very happy then and I now think I know why.
Have you ever read any of Ayn
Rand's work? I'm still working
on the whole of it, but I read Anthem
a while ago and it always struck
me as an
amazing piece with an amazing message. So the fact that you
constantly
use
"we" when really you mean "I" eats at me, but not to an
extent that I can't get over it. It makes sense for what you
are doing.
Only a few months ago I read The Fountainhead
and I can
honestly say it changed my life. It made it OK to be myself,
to want
what I
want, to ignore the idiot masses and to listen to myself. For
the most
part all
this agrees with you. But another great point of Rand's
philosophy of
egotism
is only concerning yourself with yourself. And I wonder, how
much do
you care
about others' opinions of you? Being judged by others is
inescapable,
but giving
their concerns any weight is not. Through bits and pieces of
your work,
I am
getting the impression you have changed yourself for the better,
partially for
yourself, which I totally agree with, but it seems there is also change
happening just for the swagger factor, to give the asshole kids a big
"fuck you."
Now I'm not saying I'm right.
Maybe through Ayn Rand's
amazing work of fiction I was able to disillusion myself into thinking
that I
can exist just as myself, without regard for what others think of me.
But the
feeling of freedom and genuine acceptance and the happiness that has
lead to
seem to verify that my thinking is right.
I guess my basic question is,
how much do you give a shit
about what people think about you?
—T.
Dear T:
We’ve been meaning to
clarify our relationship to Rand
for a while now, since people have brought up her name in conjunction
with ours
before, so thanks for the question.
We
didn’t want to do a whole essay about Rand,
since we
have not read a ton of her stuff (some of us have tried to read it, and
thought
it sucked, which we suppose answers part of your question), so the
Reader Mail
section works quite nicely as a forum in which to clear this up. We feel like
we’re familiar enough with “the
whole Ayn Rand thing” to address your points, so here goes.
First of all, although we
don’t love her books from an
artistic perspective, we do think it’s inaccurate and unfair
that “the whole
Ayn Rand thing” has become synonymous with conservatism,
seeing as how her
signature song seemed to be not accepting bullshit and fully realizing
yourself
as an individual, whereas contemporary conservatism is basically wholly based on swallowing received
bullshit unquestioningly. So
there’s
definitely a lot of cherry-picking going on where Rand and the Right
are
concerned, and most Liberals don’t seem even to realize this,
since Rand is now
so associated with the Right that no Liberals read her.
All the Rand-worship sites seem to be run by
Conservatives, which explains the hilarious fact that virtually all
online
lists of “Ayn Rand quotes” include a shitload where
she talks shit about the
New Deal, but none where she talks shit about religion, even though she
talked
as much shit about religion as she did about anything.
But the main reason we never
got on board with “the whole
Ayn Rand thing” (aside from the fact that everything valid
she
says is taken from Nietzsche, so we prefer to just go right to the
source and read Nietzsche) is that, although her fans certainly like to
bandy about words
like logic and reason,
they seem often to be carrying those terms in vain, and
taking them to mean things that they don’t really mean. We’ve made it
clear that we don’t have any
problem with being a dick when the truth is at stake, but we also try
to take
care to point out that “logic” doesn’t
mean simply being a dick for the sake of
being a dick. Simply
put, 1585
doesn’t really have a problem with giving some change to a
homeless guy now and
then—it is simply not that big a deal.
Yes, we will fight with every ounce of our strength
in support of the
fact that evolution is a fact, but it would simply be inaccurate to say
that
any opinion about whether one should or shouldn’t give change
to a homeless guy
can be a “fact.”
That would be like
saying that a position about whether one should or shouldn’t
like the taste of
pickles can be a “fact.”
In other words,
just because you call your philosophy “Objectivism”
and say the word “reason” a
lot doesn’t prove that you are actually being objective or
reasonable. Ask
anyone with a degree in Philosophy, and
they will tell you that Rand’s
work is frequently used
as a punching bag in Philosophy classes, when the professor wants to
bring in a
text that seems intelligently
written
but actually has shitloads of logical fallacies in it for the students
to pick
out.
You talk about the
“idiot masses,” and so do we, but we feel
like we should make sure we’re all on the same page with
that: yes, someone who
believes that Noah’s Ark really happened is an
idiot—but someone who just
thinks it would be nice if they had enough money to feed their kids isn’t one. Economically,
we are definitely Liberals: we
think the rich should be taxed more heavily than the poor, we think
there
should be such things as unemployment benefits and a minimum wage you
can
actually fucking survive on, and we think public-school funding from
property
taxes should be pooled beyond district lines, and possibly even
statewide
(especially since the Republicans counteract
“natural” population shifts with
gerrymandering, to make sure the rich areas stay rich and the shitty
areas stay
shitty). It is
simply not the case that
being against these things is more “logical” than
being for them, and anyone
who says it is just doesn’t know what
“logic” means.
And the Rand cult has played a big part in
logic’s being given a bad name, to the point where nowadays
people think it
means some kind of Gordon Gecko bullshit instead of simply not making
errors
when you figure shit out about shit that actually has something to do
with
“objective truth” one way or the other, which
egotism inherently doesn’t.
Yes, we have argued that a bit more
“egotism”
would be pragmatically advantageous to the Left at this point in time,
but
that’s not the same thing as “proving”
that it is objectively right to be a
dick for the sake of being a dick in all possible cases.
As for whether we
“give a shit what people think about us,”
there’s not a one-word answer to that one either. Our first instinct was to
say that we care
what good people think of us, and don’t care what bad people
think of us. But
then we realized that the problem was
with the word “care,” since it’s pretty
vague in that sentence. We
thought it meant that if someone we
thought was a good person disagreed with something on the site, and
explained
why, and we thought they had a valid point, we would change our
minds—but then
we realized that if anyone had a
valid
point to the effect that we were wrong about something, we would change
our
minds. So, the
issue there is the
presence or absence of the “valid point,” not the
good/bad person dichotomy. (Maybe
we just define good
people as the ones most likely to have valid points?)
But
remember what the point of our project
is: there are assholes who are hurting people, and we’re
trying to stop
them. That is the
very essence of
“giving a shit.”
If we were “looking out
for #1,” then we would have just chosen to parlay our skills
into making a lot
of money writing advertising slogans or something—but we
didn’t.
The “whole Ayn Rand
thing” is right about the fact that it’s
logically flawed to base beliefs on emotion—but only insofar as emotion clouds
one’s judgment, which it doesn’t
always
do (although, in the spirt of Rand, we really should point out that you
closed your e-mail by asserting that Objectivism must be true because
it makes you happy, which is more than a little logically problematic). Yes, it
is a problem that there are people
who want Creation to be taught in school, because they want
religion to be true because it makes them feel
better—but it is also
true that it was the logical and right decision to go to war against
Hitler,
and wasn’t that decision based on feeling
sympathy for his victims? Emotion
doesn’t always mean
you’re making a
mistake—when it makes you wrong
it
does, but the rest of the time it just means you’re human. In short, it is a priori necessary to believe that human
existence is valuable and
worthy of respect in order to be able to believe that anything is
“right” or
“wrong,” because otherwise there’s no
such thing as ethics.
And this, by the way, is why
you can’t really have such a
thing as “Objectivism,” even if you’re us
(except for cases where actual facts
are concerned, e.g., “hydrogen is lighter than
helium”). A
lot of Rand seems
simply to involve giant overreactions to threats that don’t
really exist, which
in turn lead to a bunch of fine distinctions that don’t make
any sense, e.g., how Objectivism glorifies happiness but
condemns "hedonism"—seriously,
how can you argue
that self-actualization is the
individual’s highest calling while simultaneously dismissing
as bullshit
everything that makes the self a self to begin with?
We mean, it sure sounds good, but so does
lots of shit.
1585 is dedicated to logic, reason, and
self-actualization, yes—but we're equally dedicated to the
idea
that
having fun doesn't mean you're not smart. It's extremely
important to be right... but it's also extremely important
to walk around in the woods while listening to
Beethoven's 9th Symphony every now and then. If people never
do
the second thing, then what the fuck is the point of the first?
Cheers,
—S.G. and the Crew
NOTE:
Another piece
concerning 1585's relationship to Rand was later added here.
Back to the Top
Back
to Reader Mail Central
Back to
the Homepage
|
|