I would be remiss if I didn’t make this point. I have a special liking for two great Russian novels, War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged. They are philosophical opposites. Tolstoy crammed his book with collectivist philosophy, and Rand crammed her book with individualist philosophy. No doubt they would hate each other. But I love both books. I have no problem suspending disbelief in the extremes of either the left or the right in order to enjoy and appreciate a great book.

Well he certainly seems intelligent although his thought patterns are confused and quite convoluted. Again, he’s doing a huge amount of “projecting” and is definitely highly paranoid. I’m assuming you’ve read his most recent post on “that” thread, this time directed mostly at me although he’s fired off some shots at the rest of the PP crowd too.

It’s disconcerting that such an individual is involved in such a supposedly high-profile organisation — dangerous to say the least, although — again — I’m not sure if his mental state is at HuT/Anjem Choudhary levels just yet. His behaviour and perception is still quite unstable, though.

Jay Singh was correct in using the word “neurotic” — and in this case, I don’t think it’s just a figure of speech. Psychologically, that guy doesn’t seem to be very well in some aspects. It’s also obvious that he’s been on the receiving end of a huge amount of misinformation and propaganda — assuming that he’s not actually aware of the “true facts” and is not deliberately lying in order to a) defend himself from what he perceives to be an “attack” and b) to further his own agenda.

I responded with a “final” post in response to his own, although I’m not sure if this’ll do any good. “Watching” someone repeatedly and ignorantly rant like that and (unknowingly) embarrass himself on a globally-accessible public internet forum is not a pleasant experience. I wish he’d just drop the matter so he doesn’t make things even worse for himself, especially as he’s showing himself to be a liability to his organisation and, by virtue of his behaviour, is not exactly a positive ambassador for the religion he wishes to promote either.

Good luck with your revision.

So when God acts through people, he kills them?

Without getting into another long drawn-out debate a la PP, personally I believe that the answer is Yes, although it’s more to do with a last-resort option in order to defend the innocent rather than anything driven by anger or maliciousness. You know the Sikh angle on it all so I don’t need to get into all that here.

I hope you’ve been keeping tabs on “that” thread on PP. Our belligerent friend from the MAC is not only an arrogant thug and a pathological liar, he’s also a blatant hypocrite. Considering the amount of “projecting” (in the psychiatric sense) he’s doing, his apparently delusional detachment from reality, and his paranoia combined with a staggering lack of self-awareness, it’s like a case study in clinical psychosis.

The words “Asperger’s Syndrome” came to mind, although that may be an exaggeration. He’s not quite at Anjem Choudhary extremes but he’s certainly significantly on the same path and is using many of the same psychologically manipulative tactics. I was wondering what you thought of it all, especially as a medical professional.

As you know, I don’t normally believe in making such comments about people when they’re not around to defend themselves, but in the interests of “keeping the peace” I thought I should mention it to you here rather than on PP, especially as the guy concerned has been unable to restrain himself from trying to “have the last word” on that thread. Further responses from me there would just unnecessarily inflame and prolong a situation which is already irritating enough.

Pure comic-book entertainment.

but Atlas Shrugged is a great book, in my opinion

Yes. A fun story but not something to live by.

So why did you read the book five times? You gave a fairly standard denunciation of Rand, so why devote so much time to the book?

I’m not an Objectivist, by the way, but Atlas Shrugged is a great book, in my opinion, and would make a great miniseries if done right. But done right does not mean to me trying to sell Objectivism, but merely presenting the larger than life characters acting out the great story. The philosophy in the background need only be outlined to add to the drama.

David Bernstein speculates about the casting for a new film of Atlas Shrugged. Inevitably, someone in the comments points out the obvious, viz, that Ayn Rand is an atrocious novelist fit only for insecure fifteen-year-old boys. Some other Volokh readers are not amused, and stomp off in a huff to listen to their Rush CDs.

In short because I’ve seen a lot of people come away from the book with messages which are not only useless but also perhaps harmful:

1) We should have a purely capitalist system (the success of capitalism in Atlas Shrugged depends entirely upon a certain model of human behavior – when in real life the “capitalist giants” are generally Jim Taggarts)

2) Europeans are better (and eastern philosophies are purely corrupt – although it’s clear that she knows nothing about the eastern philosophies she is condemning)

3) [The person who just read the book] is just a misunderstood genius.

4) The reader fails to take into account (because Rand largely does) the cases of people who are disadvantaged due to disabilities or to life circumstances – yes, ultimately [almost] everyone is responsible for themselves but there are substantial and real differences in people’s starting points, which in practice make it vastly more difficult for some people.

5) People are completely able, if they only make the effort, to identify and evaluate their values, premises, and their sources.

I read Atlas Shrugged like a comic book. “Wouldn’t it be great if [people were motivated purely by the desire to realize their best expression];[material and psychological and systemic oppression based upon race, gender, or colonial history were not so difficult to overcome as they are]; [etc.]. Then, …”

It is a statement of an ideal in human behavior producing an idealized world. But it is harmful to look at the idealized results, and decide to apply Rand’s stated causes to real society, because there are forces in real society which are not taken into account in Rand’s version of “real society.”

Moreover, the model of human psychology was too simplistic. Rand, like all of us humans, was unable to identify and evaluate all of her premises and their sources – because we have a lot going on semi- or subconsciously. It is valuable to make the attempt, but no one can expect to be able to succeed completely – in fact, that expectation can create even more sinister delusions.

I remember some years ago on the Prodigy bulletin boards there were two self-identified camps of Objectivists – “Randian Objectivists” and “Liberal Objectivists.” The “liberals” believed in the idea of people identifying and “owning” their value systems, checking their premises, etc. (what I will call the “Objectivist process”), but allowed that there could be a diversity of resulting value systems. The “Randians” believed that you were “depraved” if you did not end up with the exact same results as Rand did after going through the “Objectivist process.”

But when I read the Brandens’ biographies I learned that from Rand’s viewpoint only what we called “Randian Objectivists” were Objectivists. In fact, everything down to your preference in sexual partners was mandated – i.e. if you were female and attracted to a guy who didn’t look like a Randian hero, that was evidence of some hidden “depravity.” In practice, Rand’s word, not necessarily the logical result of applying the Objectivist process, defined Objectivism. That would seem to undermine the central concept of Objectivism.

I was also very struck by a description in one of the biographies (can’t remember whether Nathaniel’s or Barbara’s) of a comic book which Rand had read at the age of 9 – featuring a tall, fair, blond, blue-eyed, long-limbed hero named Cyrus who rescued a similarly-built heroine from the clutches of a “fat, greasy Rajah.” It seemed clear to me that here was the origin of her character types (and the offhand mentions of fat, greasy Rajahs and grotesque, many-armed idols in summing up and dismissing eastern philosophies). As you may know her heroine in “We the Living” is Kira, the feminine form of the name Cyrus.

On the whole, Objectivism must be taken with a few grains of salt, with an emphasis on what responsibility oneself can take, but with an understanding that too strict an application can lead to dangerous forms of denial (“I checked all my premises and I have it all squared away”). And there must be an emphasis on the stated process, not on the specific conclusion as laid out by Rand. And it is ultimately anti-Objectivist, I believe, to approach Objectivism by demanding that the rest of the world operate as in Atlas Shrugged without looking to oneself first.

I’ve read it at least 5 times. (possibly enough to “internalize” it )