The Ethics of Living Forever Debate (Part II)

[0:34:02-0:36:58] Now they delve into a discussion of exactly what AI is and means. I do think artificial intelligence will force us into asking more questions about ourselves, but that does not mean these series of 0s and 1s are the same as the organic creatures we are. It is already apparent that AI assists us in so many ways today, from the computers in our pockets to the surgeries completed with robots. There is no doubt that these machines will help us learn more so much faster and efficiently than ever before. However, I do not think this will change fundamental human nature or replace us in any meaningful way like so many people seem to fear.

[0:36:58-0:39:37] Alright, so Tucker then says, “If the Industrial Revolution, the steam-powered loom in England gave rise to Marxism in the first and second world wars and Vietnam and Korea and every other conflict for a hundred years, the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. You know, technological change causes displacement, the fall of religions, the fall of empires, the murder of millions. So what will AI do?” Wow. This sounds like a Marxist professor talking about how awful the Industrial Revolution was for all of humanity rather than focusing on how many millions of lives new technology and innovation saved. To hear this sentiment coming from someone “on the right” is doubly astonishing. Truly, there is not much difference between the religious right and the atheist left when a morality of death is at the center of each. And then Tucker jumps to autonomy and AI somehow taking free will away from humans. That is quite the jump, in my opinion, since nothing can stop a man from using his own mind and, therefore, his free will to make decisions.

[0:39:37-0:43:47] “I don’t really have any reasons for saying no, other than my animal sense tells me, ‘No.’ […] That was my ‘instinct’ speaking, which I regard as a kind of coequal with my rational sense.” Ayn Rand sums up perfectly that

An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121)

So, another thing that separates us from any other animals is our need to learn what will allow us to survive. It is not automatic. If you are having a “gut feeling” about something, it means that your subconscious has some kind of answer that you are not yet consciously aware of yet or your emotions are sending out signals of danger but that is not knowledge. And Bryan’s admittance of his own depression taking over his life means that he lacked the desire to live and was making decisions counter to life. That has nothing to do with his own mind being wrong or untrustworthy but everything to do with how he was interpreting his situation. It made sense to him at the moment to go for that brownie to bring momentary pleasure in the face of the utter sense of hopelessness he felt. That is not irrational per se, but it is not the best way to live or find genuine happiness and he learned to overcome that hole he put himself in.

[0:43:47-0:44:35] Amazing. Tucker says, “And it does strike me, if you’re looking back into history that this is the only period, post-war, post-World War II where you’ve had a society at scale that assumes that there’s nothing beyond itself. […] Why did every previous generation assume that there was a God, but we don’t?”

First of all, not all people have believed in religion, and many were forced into whatever religion controlled their region for the majority of human history. You’d be killed if you thought otherwise. And while it’s true that there is a growing number of atheists in this world, Christianity and Islam still reign supreme. We are seeing this atrophying in religion because of all the newest science and technology that has been created. There are many answers we now have that we simply did not have before. Creation myths were the best way for homo sapiens to explain how things happened and that is why religion was the first stepping stone toward philosophy in explaining our world and how it works. The more we care to learn about things like our appendixes, the more we understand that everything can be explained in this world and not in some divine, unknowable realm.

To which Bryan replies that it doesn’t really matter whether we believe in god or not, “we already agree on don’t die—all of us do.” Now, I have explained in a previous video that this is simply not true. Those depressed or terminally ill people out there no longer believe in “don’t die.” It is a choice people have to make daily. I just think Bryan Johnson’s premise is wrong, and Tucker sniffs this out with him by continuing to bring back the idea of self-harm.

[0:44:35-0:46:54] This is yet another idea that I have discussed before, and it boggles my mind every time I come across it. Tucker says, “There’s no meaning without a power beyond ourself, is there? I mean there is only this sort of, like, shallow, silly, or sense meaning that we attach to various things, like sex or living longer or feeling good or whatever, but there’s no meaning beyond our physical, momentary experience. Whereas a person who acknowledges a power beyond himself attaches ultimate moral meaning to events. […] No God, no meaning.” I simply cannot fathom a person who does not look at their spouse for who they are and love them for their values and physical form. How could you feel anything higher than what is right in front of you? I plan on worshipping, yes, worshipping my baby when she arrives because of the potential she has and the perfection that she already is. To me, that does feel spiritual, but it does not need to ascend to some higher plane to be real and intense. It almost feels like Christians live with this foggy window between them and reality, unable to feel spiritually for the things that are the here and now. Even an insect who lives for a day has no clue that his life is tiny, momentary, fleeting; he survives by his instincts and lives with every fiber of his being for that brief time, as if he would live forever in such a manner. Humans do not live like bugs, though; we produce and make marks all over the future of our race. We leave ripples in our wake and our names can be carried on past our lives. Why do you need anything more?

And, of course, Bryan Johnson comes back with the biological “squirtings” idea that that’s where our meaning comes from, rather than understanding that human beings get meaning from the values they achieve throughout their lives. It is a process that requires action, not just chemical integrations, though we do rewire our brains with every experience we have. And it is true that we do live and experience in a particular body where mind and body are inextricably intertwined. But the body without the mind is nonexistent; we are more than those chemical processes our body goes through. We must use our rational minds to survive, which is why we need a code of morality in the first place. In my opinion, you cannot “engineer” meaning for an individual human being. They must figure out what that is for themselves through their own personal experiences and physical nature in space.

[0:46:54-0:50:18] Rightly, Tucker points out that we still need a code of morality to Bryan. But then he goes and says something silly: “If I feel like killing you because it pleases me, how can we oppose that?” As Dostoyevsky believed (and as I’ve addressed before), he thought that people without religion would murder each other left and right. I, among many others out there, are “good without god.” We are living our lives in peace as atheists. How is that possible? Because there is such a thing as a secular moral code to live by. Let me shout again, “Objectivism!” Reality is the only thing I “follow” to come up with my code. Would killing another person make me feel good? No. Would I end up in prison for life for it? Yes. Would it lead to my rational happiness to be trapped in a cage for the rest of my life or be haunted by the flashbacks of committing such a heinous crime? No. So why do it? If Tucker took one psychology class, then he would, hopefully, understand that people do seemingly “crazy” things for typically obvious reasons. There are all kinds of reality-based reasons that people harm each other; they don’t require a mysterious demon on their back to harm themselves or another for money, fame, revenge, justice, you name it—there’s almost always a reason for the action taken.

And then Tucker dares to say that we can’t say murder is “wrong” without god and Bryan Johnson just goes along with it. Ayn Rand discusses crime in particular as:

A crime is a violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others—i.e., the recourse to violence—that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime—and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime. (Ayn Rand, “Political Crimes,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 176)

So it is wrong to kill someone because they have a right to their own life. Though, this can be teetering on the brink of a trolley problem if the killing is given without the proper context. I don’t have the space to look at the law in depth here, but that is why we have a court system in the first place—to determine if a killing (or any other crime) was in self-defense or not. Killing in self-defense to protect your own life is not morally wrong; it’s what becomes necessary for your own survival, so it can neither be right nor wrong. Ayn Rand has always said that “morality ends where a gun begins” (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 133). A moral system can only be followed when a man has a choice; that choice is simply robbed from him whenever another threatens to kill him and vice versa.

Unfortunately, both men lack the clear answer that Ayn Rand has provided, and which Tucker believes remains “unsolved.”

[0:50:18-0:54:31] This was another doozy when Tucker asks, “Without God, how can we say, and why would we say, that life is better than death? I mean, the religious person, the Christian, says life is better than death because God creates life.” At no point did I grow up thinking that death was better than life. I am baffled that a Christian honestly wonders why life is better than death. Only if you truly believe in this blissful afterlife that you have no proof exists could you see death as anything other than horrifying and an enemy to mankind. Life is much more exciting, first of all, than oblivion and more than what I imagine would be a dull place after the high wears off in the afterlife. You can only feel the highest of highs on earth and develop a greater understanding when you have lost a value and felt the lowest of the lows. Death is simply a negation of life, the absence of life. I do not want to be a void; I want to live. And the world is beautiful to me on its face, not because someone divine created it. Nature creates its own wondrous patterns, and it excites me to learn about them, and as humans have learned, every species has evolved with these attributes due to some advantage for their survival. We have this beautiful and still very mysterious mind, and I gaze in spiritual wonder at its beauty with no need to have a sole creator of the entire world. Yet, I believe that I go to that same spiritual realm of emotion that a Christian does but completely devoid of god.

[0:54:31-1:00:34] Oh, boy, Tucker says, “You would not disagree if I said, ‘Here’s what we know: We know that AI is likely to spawn some improvements, also certain to kill millions of people.’ Millions will die because of this, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it—the chaos alone, right, will cause that.” Why not just blow it all up essentially? Wow, his answer is like a mix of utilitarianism and nihilism and a Luddite mentality. First of all, the lawsuits brought against Elon Musk and his “self-driving” Teslas, as far as I am aware, are all due to user error and not because of the algorithm itself. People are the ones still harming themselves when they don’t use their brains or follow directions. AI is much safer and helps to keep us safer than we’ve ever been before. There is no guarantee, as Bryan is saying, that artificial intelligence will kill millions. There already has been no such apocalyptic scenario as he fears. If anything, more people have survived a surgery that a doctor’s shaking hand would have botched years ago that a robot did without a single error. Heck, I had LASIK done with the help of AI and lasers to fix my nearsightedness, and that was the closest thing I’ve ever seen to a miracle.

Bryan Johnson is able to make somewhat of an argument similar to mine to Tucker that humans are more fallible than AI is, which does seem to be the case thus far. And I’m thankful that at least Bryan was able to say that he does not “accept the premise” of AI killing millions in the future.

[1:00:34-1:07:40] “We don’t have any idea what we’re talking about, and we can’t anticipate the future. We’re limited in our foresight, in our knowledge, and particularly in our wisdom.” And then he comes up with this example of no robot ever being able to tell him why his wife is mad at him and Bryan Johnson says that we can use AI to tell us that answer. To which Tucker says that this is too “mechanistic,” and ignores “the most important universe, which is the spiritual universe.” I shouted here, “Objectivism!” Tucker claims again that we are controlled morally by “spiritual forces, unseen forces” and that he doesn’t see any “evidence” in what Bryan is saying. And Bryan Johnson agrees that this is a very spiritual moment for all of us on this planet and that AI is “neutral” and that we give it meaning, which I agree with. Bryan says he wants to eliminate “the causes of death.” To which Tucker retorts, “But until we can account for why we do it to ourselves, we’re probably not gonna change it. And I think the most obvious explanation is we’re being acted on by demons, whose—and this is how every religion that I’m aware of has described it, correctly, in my opinion—acted on by demons, whose goal is to destroy and kill people and they’re a counterbalance? by God. But, if you don’t agree with that, then you need to substitute another explanation in its place in order to proceed in the hope that we can change.” One more time, I scream: “Objectivism!” There is a battle between “good and evil” as Tucker mentions, but it is not in an unseen realm, it is between individual human beings. It is happening every second of every day, and that is why civilization has emerged to manage those fights through our military, courts, and police, aka our government on a global scale, and with the help of philosophy and psychology and other sciences on an individual scale.

Finally, Bryan Johnson says, “I’m with you; what I heard you say is there’s more to reality than we can see, there’s forces which we can’t identify, and we should address those. We’re on the same page, after the same thing.” Neither man can seem to prove what “forces” are acting on us to determine our actions or our code of morality. Objectivism would say that human beings with free will are driven by their minds to survive, to live, to be happy. That’s it. There is nothing more than that as a species. To live “healthy, wealthy, and wise,” as John Clarke and more famously Benjamin Franklin said, is to live happily on this earth. That should be our only goal, our only mission in life.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4E0jEjQMM; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/history.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/instinct.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/crime.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l79rXk4NQlc&list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR&index=2; https://www.amazon.com/New-Intellectual-Philosophy-Rand-Anniversary/dp/0451163087; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primitive-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011841

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

The Ethics of Living Forever Debate (Part I)

A friend brought this interview between Tucker Carlson and Bryan Johnson to my attention, and once the two gentlemen started delving into the “ethics of living forever,” I found myself shouting at the screen, “Objectivism!” I could not help myself, and I needed an outlet to vent. So seeing as I have an audience on the internet who is willing to listen to me, I am going to share the interview, along with my commentary scattered throughout. I will list the time stamps for the Carlson interview in the description box below if you are curious about rewatching certain parts of the interview. This is the first time I’ve made content like this, so let me know down in the comments section if you liked it.

Alright, time to get this interview started! The first ten minutes or so consist of just some background on who Bryan Johnson is, in case you have never heard of him or his work before. Tucker Carlson, of course, is the famous former FOX News host, who now has his own video podcast show called The Tucker Carlson Encounter.

[0:00:00-0:09:21] “By the way, I’m not endorsing any of this.” Carlson will repeat this phrase because he does not agree with Bryan’s anti-aging methods. Hold this in mind as we get deeper into the interview.

[0:09:21-0:09:59] Tucker begins by attacking Project Blueprint with the skepticism one would find among Democrats who distrust “rich people.” He says the rich feed off the blood of children and that clearly does alarm Tucker, even though he is a millionaire himself. You may feel like this is an obvious concern people have brought up, but later on in the video, it will become more apparent that this method really rubs Tucker the wrong way.

[0:09:59-0:11:14] So, Bryan Johnson says, “You are the product” and to someone who is as religious as you will see Tucker is, this freaks him out. So his response is so telling: “I never asked what the appendix is. […] I really made an effort to not focus on those things because it seems like a lot of self-focus, and it seems like a short trip from there to, say, narcissism, which is, obviously, death.” Wow. You know, as I was listening to this interview, I learned a lot more about how Christians view this world that I could not have even fathomed before, having left my Protestant upbringing by eleven. It seems impossible for me to believe that people would avoid asking what is wrong when their body malfunctions. I spend all day reading and writing and consuming videos to discover the truth of things, to understand my body and this world, all day long. So to outright reject thinking about your own appendix because that seems selfish to a Christian is downright medieval thinking. It’s frightening to hear, honestly. Throughout this interview, pay attention to how concerned and brainwashed Tucker Carlson is in his faith and its utter obsession with their notion of selfishness. He is constantly equating what should be the “virtue of selfishness” as Rand calls it, or the ego and the self-esteem that follows, with narcissism, death, and the devil. Okay, let’s move on.

[0:11:14-0:12:28] Now, Bryan Johnson reveals his upbringing in Mormonism (which he didn’t actually leave until his thirties). And now, much like Descartes, he lost his trust in everything, most unfortunately, the trust in his mind. This is just as corrupt as thinking that god is in control of your life, by believing that only the chemical “squirtings” in your body are in control of your life and not your rational mind. He also places death as the centerpiece of his newfound philosophical system. The enemy is death, and it must be defeated. Now, I must say here that I also feel that my greatest enemy here on earth is death, but the philosophy of Objectivism is not based on that premise, rather one of happiness as the end goal. Objectivists are moving toward a positive and not focused with fear on constantly running away from a negative.

[0:12:28-0:15:07] Tucker says, “You grew up in a world—a Mormon world—that believed and taught you that it had already solved the question of death through Jesus.” This was probably the biggest shock to me while watching this video podcast. I suppose having left the religion so early that Christians, in general, believe that the resurrection of Jesus was actually him “conquering” death (the devil) and allowing us all to have eternal life in heaven. I just have never believed that anyone had “solved death” before. It certainly does not feel solved when you are watching your own mother die so young from the horrible jaws of cancer. That feels like a “devilish act” that she should have been saved from, no? At least Bryan Johnson has the guts to tell Tucker Carlson that he would like evidence of such a thing existing and that the speed at which artificial intelligence is growing may be our single way out of dying. I agree that the idea of “age escape velocity” is much more plausible at this point than the idea of there being any sort of afterlife. Tucker says that what Bryan Johnson is doing “to that extent” is “virtuous.” But just wait.

[0:15:07-0:15:34] “I just wonder if—as someone who grew up in a religious community—if part of you, maybe deep inside, fears that when you start to say things like, ‘We can defeat death,’ that you won’t be smoked down by the God of the universe.” Again, wow. Tucker Carlson truly lives his life in fear, like a child worried about getting coal on Christmas from Santa Claus. It boggles my mind that adults can still carry this same childlike mentality into their middle and old age. Bryan’s reply of “not in the least bit” was refreshing to hear but not the Harris-like cackle from Tucker. This man thinks that Bryan is a fool, and it does not come from a good place in his soul as he responds with, “Well, you’re either very brave or very foolish.”

[0:15:34-0:16:56] Take note that Tucker Carlson will increasingly howl in laughter more, like Harris, when he gets uncomfortable. Tucker then asks, “Aren’t you saying I’m God?” To which Bryan responds with an odd response of, “I’m saying that the universe speaks in irony.” What? Here is where I started shouting, “Objectivism!” The universe, as Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir, says, is

the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the “cause” of the universe…

Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is outside of the universe, if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase “outside of the universe” has no referent. The universe is everything. “Outside the universe” stands for “that which is where everything isn’t.” There is no such place. There isn’t even nothing “out there”: there is no “out there.” (Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 2)

So “the universe” does not have a consciousness like me or you. It is simply everything in existence. Therefore, it cannot be “ironic” since that is a man-made term. It just is. There is a process to the natural world, but that is also not ironic. So, if Bryan Johnson or Tucker Carlson had cared to ever read more than some smatterings of Ayn Rand’s fiction, then they would have better answers than from a Christian or a hippie perspective, as revealed throughout this interview.

[0:16:56-0:17:35] This is shocking. “You know, many people though history have reached similar conclusions but not with similar technology to affect those conclusions, right? […] But, you know, history laughs at those people, and the story of history is men addled with hubris being humiliated. [Notice the slight, cynical smile here]. And so, I mean, I would say that there is a great deal of evidence that you will be crushed and humiliated for saying that.” Wow, wow, wow. This is a medieval mind telling you and me to just watch your loved one suffer and die with a pitiful clasp of the hands and the sigh of resignation that it must have been their time. If I love my mother, then I will fight death for her. I will understand the kind of cancer she got and how she could have avoided such outcomes, if any. I would feel an anger in my soul that I could not save her. I would advocate for the scientists of today (since I will admit my strengths lie more in the arts than the sciences) to find the cure for all diseases. I will never give up the control I have in my power to fight death. History is created by the intellectual minority.

Just as a man’s actions are preceded and determined by some form of idea in his mind, so a society’s existential conditions are preceded and determined by the ascendancy of a certain philosophy among those whose job is to deal with ideas. The events of any given period of history are the result of the thinking of the preceding period. The nineteenth century—with its political freedom, science, industry, business, trade, all the necessary conditions of material progress—was the result and the last achievement of the intellectual power released by the Renaissance. The men engaged in those activities were still riding on the remnants of an Aristotelian influence in philosophy, particularly on an Aristotelian epistemology (more implicitly than explicitly). (Ayn Rand, “For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 28)

Would you rather, Tucker, have men of the mind engage in experiments that are not always successful or would you like to live like the isolated African tribes that still exist today, dying from things that we have been preventing for hundreds of years at this point? Would you rather cheer on the scholar and the businessman, like Bryan Johnson, who take these ideas from the realm of ideas to reality? I thought you advocated for capitalism, but you sound more and more like the anti-colonial left here.

[0:17:35-0:19:22] Poor Bryan starts to allow the naysayers to get to him by saying, “I think it’s likely inevitable that I will die the most ironic death.” And there goes the Tucker cackle with such joy. He says, “Yes, that is so true. By the way, that’s the message of the New Testament; I mean that’s the Sermon on the Mount. It’s the irony book.” At this point, I’m fuming. I have seen so many comments under Bryan Johnson’s own videos saying such nihilistic things as “Well, it would be hilariously ironic if you got hit by a truck right now.” As if people want to “trolley problem” their own existence when they make comments like this. But who bases their values, their moral system on accidents? What about the choices you make on a daily basis that may have put you in those situations in the first place? I think it is cruel and a sign of depression to think this way. That it is not worth trying to stay alive because accidents happen, not to mention that most accidents are not fatal. We have all fallen off our bike while learning to ride one, and how many children out of that were run over by a truck? I mean, really, this is, to me, a nihilistic and liberal mindset at its core. If Bryan Johnson knew about Ayn Rand, then he would never kowtow before these ridiculous premises. “Okay, now I like you a lot. I think that’s just a wonderful thing to say. That is wisdom.” What?! I am so sick to my stomach hearing this in 2024 and not 1424.

[0:19:22-0:22:33] “This is when homo sapiens realized that they reached a technological threshold, where the only objective of existence was to continue to exist at the basic level. So this is “Don’t Die.” Again, in this Descartes way of viewing the world, the objective of existence does not really make sense. Ayn Rand says that “existence exists.” It is here metaphysical and the first pillar of Objectivism (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 124). It is just reality itself. So the question naturally becomes, Well, the objective of existence for whom? Bryan says, “homo sapiens.” But we require so much more than existing, that’s not living. A depressed person, as Tucker points out, who is simply existing is not going to wish to live long and has the ability to consciously off themselves, unlike any other species. We want to be happy, and that can only be achieved by living according to the laws of nature, reality. I think Tucker, being as religious as he is, realizes that there is something hollow about just not dying when he believes we have souls and, apparently, demons too.

[0:22:33-0:22:53] Bryan Johnson does not have any answers as to why people harm themselves without Ayn Rand’s help. Instead, he says that “The solution that I’ve come up with is I endeavor to build an algorithm that could take better care of me than I can myself.” Which completely negates human free will and a need for any sort of moral code in that case. I do not think an algorithm can make men happy. Again, working from Descartes-like premises, Bryan Johnson does not trust anything around him, including his mind. He thinks people act “insane,” even though we know from a legal perspective that proving actual insanity, a total divorce from reality, at the time of committing a crime, is extremely rare. Just like the trolley problems, we cannot base the actions of humanity off rare states of psychosis. People make decisions every day to eat poorly or not exercise. They must learn about what they are doing to their bodies and then use their willpower to fight against the temptations, just as Bryan Johnson has done himself, without acknowledging all that his mind has actually done toward the betterment of his life. I think this utter blindness he is experiencing in his middle age comes back to his long journey with Mormonism. He simply has not read enough outside of the religion that shaped his thinking and neither has Tucker Carlson as they run around like headless chickens without an answer as to why people still harm themselves. Again, allow me to yell, “Read Ayn Rand!”

[0:22:53-0:24:23] Tucker just said, “I think there clearly are demonic forces, I think there are evil spirits that are doing this to people.” Again, I never thought that Christians actually believed that demons were still picking on humans in today’s modern world. But, apparently, Tucker Carlson has shown me that evil spirits are still very much guiding people’s moral compasses. I feel like I am a medieval monk copying out scripture right after the Black Death has struck all of Europe listening to this interview.

[0:24:23-0:25:10] This is just rich. I have definitely heard Christians say this before, and I have already made some content on this. But Tucker asks, “Like where’s that moral framework coming from if there’s no God? I don’t get that.” Objectivism! Okay, to further elaborate, the entire point of having a philosophy like Objectivism is to provide that secular moral code for man. It frees us from the notion that morality has to come from god or some higher power that is not truly human. Of course, Ayn Rand believed that we must still have a moral code; otherwise, anarchy or dictatorship would ensue as it did in both world wars and that would not lead to happy lives, only more death and destruction than ever before. What is so sad to see is that neither of these middle-aged men can understand where morality comes from when the answer has been so clearly shared with the world since at least when Atlas Shrugged was initially published in 1957. (By the way, Tucker was born in 1969 and Bryan in 1977, which means that they both were born with the advantage of having her knowledge disseminated out there since birth).

[0:25:10-0:27:08] Bryan then says, “Right now, we play capitalism and make money and earn–” and Tucker cuts him off with, “I’m with you there, that’s obviously a hollow, stupid dead end and it’s not actually even working” and then proceeds to maniacally laugh again. This is the man who is one of the top voices of the Republican Party and he just dismissed capitalism as a “hollow, stupid dead end?” Why doesn’t he just stand up and make out with Marx right now? To this entire answer, I will scream, “Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal!” Here’s just a taste of the book’s answer:

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice. (Ayn Rand, “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 20)

[0:27:08-0:27:33] Again, they circle back around to spit on the mind. Then Tucker states, “The root of wisdom is knowing not to trust yourself.” I had to think for a while where he even got this premise. It sounds very Eastern, very mystical, though I’m sure Christianity contributes to some of this attitude as well. This debate is a very old one in philosophy between the “mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle.” Ayn Rand addresses this by explaining:

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.

Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach. (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 138)

Both men are preaching a “Morality of Death” here and not of life. They are agreeing so much because their premises are the same—selfishness is the ultimate evil.

[0:27:33-0:29:32] Then Tucker drops another revealing sentiment that many Christians seem to share: “I mean the accumulated sadness of life is hard to take.” Look, I grew up with enough childhood trauma for a lifetime, but does that mean that I would rather not exist? No. I have always accepted the anxiety and grief that came with my struggles, but there was still laughter and love in my life to get me through those tough times. There were many times I vowed that I desired to keep feeling than feel nothing at all because the feelings themselves could not kill me. I mean, if everyone living in this place called heaven were to be there in eternal bliss, then they would end up being simply numb to their bliss. Their afterlife would then have no meaning if they just existed up there in this kind of stasis. No, I prefer to live and breathe with the understanding that loss and grief are a part of life but so is laughter and joy.

[0:29:32-0:31:40] “All of life is an invitation to humility. […] that is the root of wisdom and the root of happiness.” What?! Humility is certainly a part of Christianity where a follower of Christ must kneel down and obey and not question the laws of nature. I cannot and will not accept that mentality. Humility, or in another way, the idea of selflessness, is not at the root of happiness or wisdom. Happiness comes from the values you accumulate in your life and feels like this stable state of being because you followed reality and its rules. And wisdom comes from not obeying the laws of the bible but having the courage and pride, the self-esteem, to go searching for truth.

[0:31:40-0:34:02] Okay, then Bryan Johnson offers up this thought experiment to Tucker Carlson, who swiftly rejects it and says, “Of course I would say no, I’m not getting bossed around by a machine. Sorry. And I also don’t think that any philosophy that doesn’t include God can improve my spiritual health, because, like, what does that even mean?” Objectivism! Ahhh, this is so frustrating to be yelling at a screen with no one to hear me. There is a philosophy that does not include god and makes a heck of a lot more sense than any other system of ideas I have ever read about, even after getting my bachelor’s in philosophy. Tucker is so far gone that there is no way of changing this man’s mind at his age, unfortunately. I think that Bryan’s theory is definitely going to be appealing to the younger crowd, even if he needs a better philosophy backing his desire for this “giving birth to superintelligence.”

Well, my dear watchers and listeners, I didn’t realize before just how much I had to interject into this interview. So I have decided to split this into two parts. Please watch out for Part II soon.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4E0jEjQMM; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/history.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/instinct.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/crime.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l79rXk4NQlc&list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR&index=2; https://www.amazon.com/New-Intellectual-Philosophy-Rand-Anniversary/dp/0451163087; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primitive-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011841

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

My Love Affair with Anxiety

Today’s show is going to be a very vulnerable one for me, but I am doing it purely for myself in my process of healing with the hopes that it may help other people who are struggling in similar ways. I will not delve deeply into the specifics of what happened to me since the parties to my own Shakespearean tragedy are very much still alive, apart from my mother, who I have talked about in previous shows. So I must tread carefully to avoid any unforeseen legal issues. I also do not wish to tell anyone else’s story, so my brother will be left out of this entirely, though he also experienced many of the same traumas growing up.

I was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in 2015 after finding myself too overwhelmed by the fear to deal with it in college. After dozens and dozens of therapy and psychiatry appointments, I was handed a prescription for five milligrams of Lexapro and just that bit of medication changed my life. There was finally a quietness to the inside of my head that had been incessantly buzzing with worries since who knows when. A glimmer of control appeared. I felt like I could manage to walk on the tightrope again without falling off. I asked the psychiatrist, “Is this what ‘normal people’ feel like?” She smiled, and I vowed to try to fix myself since, apparently, I had not come out from my youth unscathed.

So when did all this start? I can still remember leaning over in bed as early as middle school, a trash can serving as a makeshift puke bucket at the bedside, shaking with nauseous fear until I fell asleep. This occurred anywhere from once a month to every few months a year. My self-soothing technique and then getting lost in the school system’s copious mounds of homework and extracurricular activities kept me able to keep everything inside until I graduated and went off to college.

I grew up with trauma for about a third of my thirty-year life at this point—from about seven to seventeen. My childhood and adolescent brain were still wiring and firing together at a fast pace while being jostled about by the unexpected tragedies that life threw at them. In the most sterile terms, my trauma timeline goes something like this: Pretty much right after my mother beat breast cancer, at seven, my parents divorced and split custody, then my mother died of a second, rarer form of endometrial cancer when I was at eleven, and finally from about eleven until seventeen, the court system, in a rare move, forced a visitation schedule between my father and my mother’s family, who had plenty of their own mental problems. My trauma mostly stems from the constant ripping back and forth between people who were supposed to love me and want what was best for me. But I felt unheard, like a prisoner in a communist country with no will of my own due to my age. My mother’s family created a boogeyman in their minds and believed they were saving me from abuse; instead, they used parental alienation, a form of emotional abuse, thereby becoming the abusers themselves. One day, I hope they reflect on this fact and realize the true damage they did by trying to separate me from the only parent I had left once my mother died.

Up until this year, I was still in denial that I even suffered from something like PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). I thought I had successfully put all the trauma in a tightly wrapped box under the floorboards of my brain. This was simply a thinking problem I needed to solve, according to Aaron Beck’s book, like an irrational fear of spiders. My mother had anxiety and my father depression, so perhaps it was all genetic, which is why only Lexapro saved me from the abyss. I would be on that stuff forever. Besides, how bad could this anxiety thing be if I never self-medicated with alcohol or drugs? I was never a wounded veteran or physically abused. I had no reason to feel like a victim. Right? But my latest therapist took a look at me, astonished, saying, “You were just a child, with a brain that was developing and still wiring itself, and trauma is still trauma.” The effects of trauma certainly feel the same, it’s just a matter of the degree.

I went back to therapy when I discovered that I was pregnant. I had heard of the case of Andrea Yates and the extreme postpartum psychosis she experienced. I was afraid because now that I was living a life of “normalcy” with a husband, a house, and a steady career, I could see the distinct moments when my anxiety demons emerged. Over the years, I started off with fears about choking and appendicitis and tornadoes and alligators. Those fears morphed into ones about grades, school, presentations, vacations, and outings, like to restaurants and things of that sort. The physical symptoms were getting stuck in my own train of thought and spiraling down right into a panic attack. Bathrooms were my best friend. My heart palpated out of my chest with the sense of impending doom right around the corner, irritation toward everyone, my stomach tied itself into knots, and I could never rest. Relaxation or vacations were foreign to me now. Entering college only unleashed more panic attacks, stronger ones, and ones where I felt something was deeply wrong with my body. As the panic attacks subsided, I tried getting off the medication only to be greeted by nights of vomiting myself to sleep, shaking to the point my teeth could be heard chattering from across the room, and no longer being able to eat. So back on the medication I went and more therapy. This time I wanted a “scientist” to help me, not a parrot. I sought out CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and while I got rid of some flashbacks, it did not stop the anxiety from transforming yet again. Nowadays, it’s been the unwanted intrusive thoughts keeping the fear very much alive. My brain is sick, and I knew that now more than ever, with a child on the way, I needed more help.

They should really have posters out there that rather than saying, “This is your brain on drugs,” they say, “This is your brain on trauma” because it does change you whether you like it or not.

Now I should say, if you, dear audience member, are worried about me, please don’t be since it is only in my happiest stage of life that I have been able to take a step back and really look at my upbringing with clarity. It is at this apex of happiness in my life of stability and wellness that I am finally strong enough to make the change in the final puzzle piece to my recovery—to acknowledge that my body keeps the score.

And with that, a previous therapist had recommended me this book to read: The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk. I wanted to share with the public every nugget that I got out of it in the hopes that others may benefit too. This book described so well how I have felt as a person who grew up swamped in a decade of trauma.

For the longest time, I was holding onto the trauma as a way to protect the memory of my mother in many ways. Of course, the happy memories with her were of a distant past that was not as vivid as the more recent traumatic ones. It is the reason that I am addicted to trauma and subsequently have this toxic love affair with anxiety. I felt so close to her when those flashbacks came in of her being sick and struggling, and my anxiety made me feel closer to her as she also struggled with the same mental illness. “Trauma is not stored as a narrative with an orderly beginning, middle, and end. […] flashbacks that contain fragments of the experience, isolated images, sounds, and body sensations that initially have no context other than fear and panic.” In Kolk’s book, he describes how he always came away in “awe at the dedication to survival that enabled my patients to endure their abuse and then to endure the dark nights of the soul that inevitably occur on the road to recovery.”

Though I felt like my trauma was not as extreme as a Vietnam vet’s and that’s why for the longest time, it was so hard for me to fix because my symptoms could, at times, be subtle but still uncomfortable or alarming when I got triggered. The book says that “trauma affects the imagination” and “also our very capacity to think” while I “stay stuck in the fear [I] know.” It actually becomes the most comfortable place for me to be, simply due to its familiarity. My anxiety or stress hormones from trauma continue not to reach the normal baseline. This brings me back to having read first Aaron Beck’s major work on anxiety, called Anxiety Disorders and Phobias: A Cognitive Perspective, which told me this was a “thinking problem” but, gee, that didn’t help at all! I do agree, however, with his idea that the anxiety built up as a survival mechanism to the trauma. I could be a high-functioning student with anxiety. But the book, ultimately, made me feel like I was irrational or unable to think. Led by my father in the household, I was taught to take on the soldier or male mentality of sucking it up and if I succumbed, then that’s a sign of weakness. I could not “let them win” by drowning in my own sorrows. So I denied letting other people in, especially therapists, since I considered them simply noisy and unhelpful for the longest time. I believed that the less I cried about it, the longer that time went by, the more I had conquered my past. But there was trauma and before I could “not let it get the best of me,” I had to be able to understand exactly what happened to me first; only then could I start to grieve and finally accept it. “People cannot put traumatic events behind until they are able to acknowledge what has happened and start to recognize the invisible demons they’re struggling with.”

After college, I developed an interest in true crime, like so many of the women in today’s society. In a strange way, feeling the anxiety well up inside of me while watching these threatening shows made me feel oddly relieved, like an addict or a compulsion I had to repeat. Again, I believe that I was trapped in a cycle where small talk was useless noise and the “real world” was full of tragedy and agony. I felt safer talking about the most frightening things over commenting on the weather. The language that I had been speaking for most of my life thus far was one of trauma—hearing true crime shows felt like they were actually speaking to me and not all these other dull, practical commentators. Hearing about murders and kidnappings and robberies felt like just another day internally for me. It was soothing to hear of others experiencing as much horror as I was. It took even more therapy while pregnant to finally see through the chaos. For “Only after learning to bear what is going on inside can we start to befriend, rather than obliterate, the emotions that keep our maps fixed and immutable.”

“All trauma is preverbal.” This quote reveals just how difficult it is to heal from trauma when you can barely express it, especially when you are in it. That’s why I feel like so many creative people who go into the arts are the types that are still learning to express their trauma in various ways: through theater, or poetry, or painting, or music, or dancing. It is a form of “sensory integration,” where you can explore “your internal map and the hidden rules that you have been living by” without completely understanding it all yourself. I used ballet and then guitar for a long time to try to at least release some air from that tightened valve—but not too much, never too much, which is why “The survivor’s energy now becomes focused on suppressing inner chaos, at the expense of spontaneous involvement in their life.” I could not and still cannot handle any spontaneous trips to places or variations in my daily routines. For I have felt too much chaos on the inside that all I want externally is peace and quiet and stability. But my voice has been the most direct and poignant in the literary fiction that I write, my novels. I find that literary fiction has always served as an outlet for people who have gone through so much, felt it all, and stayed brutally honest throughout their explanation of vital aspects of the human experience. It is also the only reason that I feel compelled to put myself out on the internet in such a vulnerable way because it is a continuation of my art, a continuation of being honest so that others can feel they are not alone in the dark. I will never fake any aspect of myself for this reason.

I think childhood trauma that lasts for an extended period of time is much more difficult to heal, fix, or try to eradicate than a person who has one bad experience, like a car crash, in their adult life. Those very specific phobias, such as a newfound fear of driving after an accident, have seen higher successful treatment rates than the ones where a brain has been maladapted for survival to fit its environment over years of abuse. My dorsal vagal complex, in charge of the emotional stimulus like nausea, has gone through this process repeatedly of going from an enforced visitation to fight or flight (also known as hyperarousal) to collapse (or hypoarousal). I discovered that “experience shapes the brain.” And while many people “In an effort to shut off terrifying sensations, they also deadened their capacity to feel fully alive,” I remember telling myself in high school that I’d rather suffer with anxiety than not feel anything at all, which I thought, at the time, would be good for my art. “However, traumatized people chronically feel unsafe inside their bodies: The past is alive in the form of gnawing interior discomfort.” By “going into a panic—they develop a fear of fear itself.” While “Suppressing our inner cries for help does not stop our stress hormones from mobilizing the body.” It is known that “Physical self-awareness is the first step in releasing the tyranny of the past.”

To me, the only thing that allowed me to survive all the trauma was to have “A Secure Base, wherein our mother may put us on her belly or breast for delicious skin-to-skin contact,” since “Our attachment bonds are our greatest protection against threat.” I know I am lucky enough to have had a secure attachment to my mother and through breastfeeding with her for two years while my dad made sure to cuddle and sing me to sleep all the time. It was all the illness and divorce and back and forth afterwards that caused a lot of trauma to my ability to attach socially with other people outside of my inner circle. In Kolk’s book, he quotes from Pierre Janet, a psychologist, who wrote, “Every life is a piece of art, put together with all means available.” Much like the parental love that protects Harry Potter in J.K. Rowling’s series, I felt wrapped in that love and self-esteem concerning myself enough to move forward with a tough face on. “Children whose parents are reliable sources of comfort and strength have a lifetime advantage—a kind of buffer against the worst that fate can hand them.” That is why divorce and subsequent separation from either parent can be so detrimental. “For example, children who are separated from their parents after a traumatic event are likely to suffer serious negative long-term side effects. Studies conducted during World War II in England showed that children who lived in London during the Blitz and were sent away to the countryside for protection against German bombing fared much worse than children who remained with their parents and endured nights in bomb shelters and frightening images of destroyed buildings and dead people.” I would have chosen to stay by my mother’s side as she was sick and then dying. I would have chosen to stay with my father when I was developing into a woman and figuring my way out in the world. A child’s parents are perfection in their eyes—no matter how much they may make mistakes. They are biologically connected devotees to their creators—mother and father. Children simply do not thrive as well without them.

Even though I cannot remember much of my growing up since I actively tried to forget about most of it, I still kept becoming unknowingly attracted to other people using this language of trauma. Many, many people fall into this cycle of falling in love with their own demons. It feels safe and like the other person really understands you, but it never turns into a very healthy relationship. It took me a few tries before I found a healthy one—one that allowed me to clearly see how odd I was compared to other adults my age.

I had to learn that “Children have no choice but to organize themselves to survive within the families they have […] Instead they focus their energy on not thinking about what has happened and not feeling the residues of terror and panic in their bodies. […] They don’t talk; they act and deal with their feelings by being enraged, shut down, compliant, or defiant.” And I was an expert at shutting down or feeling some dissociation where I’d listen to my internal dialogue and usually cause myself to panic when I was younger. Sadly, I “continue to behave as if [I] were still in danger.” It is from “The emotions and physical sensations that were imprinted during the trauma [that] are experienced not as memories but as disruptive physical reactions in the present.” Therefore, “The challenge of recovery is to reestablish ownership of your body and your mind—of your self. This means feeling free to know what you know and to feel what you feel without becoming overwhelmed, enraged, ashamed, or collapsed.”

As I discovered in college, sitting in my philosophy classes with other students, they all were driven by this question of “why?” Many of them probably started questioning after also experiencing some type of trauma in their childhoods. I know I certainly did, like why did my parents have to divorce; why did my mother have to die; why did my mom’s family dislike my father so much? All these questions pushed me to seek out answers with an obsessive attitude. Studying classic literature in middle and high school started the ball rolling, guiding me through various perspectives on human lives. But I grew hungrier with each new book. My father gave me Atlas Shrugged as a gift and said he really loved it, and so my fifteenth summer, on one of my enforced visitations, I sat and absorbed every word of Ayn Rand. I will never forget calling him frantically out of breath saying that this book changed my life, as he chuckled on the other side of the phone—how I wish he was in the room with me at the time so I could hug him so!

I continued my high school career with a clearer mind. Life made much more sense to me now than the foggy trappings of my Protestant upbringing. I felt a hope that I could make my life better for myself. Since I was almost an adult, which I had longed to be since childhood. I was so tired of being tossed around like a rag doll. I longed for the days when I could dictate my own schedule and work to achieve my own dreams without worrying about anyone else.

But like most young Objectivists, I was unable to grasp one of Rand’s many challenging concepts: the mind-body dichotomy. In Atlas Shrugged, during Galt’s famous speech, he says, “They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth—and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that glorious jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.” In terms of my anxiety, I initially saw it as a chemical error in my brain, perhaps solely a thinking problem. I made my anxiety clinical. Again, if you don’t cry and box the trauma up, then you have defeated your enemies. There was no lasting trauma for me, no PTSD. After all, as a rational Objectivist, I gave very little credence to my subjective emotions. Oh, how many of us have seen Objectivists like this? But let me let you in, dear Objectivist listeners, you cannot heal from trauma and, therefore, be happier on earth, unless you physically train your body, through things like yoga and deep breathing, to prove to your body that you are not in constant danger. That is exactly the mistake I was making for years after I left behind the trauma. I only paid attention to my mind and not my body. But they are both intertwined! You cannot have one without the other.

No matter how much we try to box up the trauma, it will come out one way or another, usually when we become our most vulnerable. The anxiety symptoms will escape and throw you down, and the depression will keep you paralyzed for days. And then most people self-medicate. They seek out alcohol, drugs, promiscuous sex to forget that they exist in a pain that seems to drop from out of nowhere. I urge more people to go seek help through a combination of medication and therapy. I have now learned that the medication was treating my brain while the therapy was truly helping my body heal—the nature and the nurture part—the genetics and the environmental scars I was wearing. Those pesky unwanted intrusive thoughts are still hanging on because my body does not know that it can come out of survival mode and breathe a sigh of relief.

I love that in many ways my anxiety kept me away from self-medicating while I was growing up and that Ayn Rand gave me the hope and courage to find my way out of this mess into my own light. Kolk’s book made me understand that trauma changes a person no matter how they deal with it. I will always be who I am and so I cannot erase the trauma I experienced, but I can learn to live with it and acknowledge the frightening thoughts as simply remnants of an ancient past that I am no longer living. Usually, when they come up, I find it helpful to think, “Oh, that’s just the trauma talking” and move on with my day. I also have to remind myself that thoughts are not thinking, and morality does not exist where thoughts do. I am not those intrusive thoughts.

In the book, Kolk also suggests various options to cope with trauma, such as self-awareness, mindfulness meditation, yoga, Pilates, theater or roleplaying out the traumatic scenarios, building strong relationships, therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), hypnosis, Model Mugging Self Defense training, Internal Family Systems, Feldenkrais Method, self-leadership, rewiring the brain through neurofeedback like with alpha-theta training.

I have personally tried talk therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (however, “In contrast to its effectiveness for irrational fears such as spiders, CBT has not done so well for traumatized individuals, particularly those with histories of childhood abuse”), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) (although, the issue I have with this method is that while I have a few vivid memories, most of my trauma was felt in the absence of my mom or in between those forced visitations (attachment problems), which may be another reason that EMDR didn’t seem to help me with association and integration), and medication. In terms of self-expression, music and ballet has helped me with controlling my breathing and my body. For instance, I have never panicked in a ballet class. After meeting my husband, who is in the National Guard, he follows a strict workout regime every morning, Monday through Saturday. This inspired me to finally start getting on my personal workout routine completed every Monday through Friday. Since becoming pregnant, I have done plenty of prenatal yoga, Pilates, and mediation, which have truly allowed me to breathe easier daily, all of which have allowed me to inhabit my body again in the way of self-care.

“Traumatized people are often afraid of feeling […] their own physical sensations that now are the enemy.” This is why you must fight back through movement. Take exercise seriously as one way to really take back control over your life. “Even though the trauma is a thing of the past, the emotional brain keeps generating sensations that make the sufferer feel scared and helpless […] avoid many social activities: Their sensory world is largely off limits.” And “This is why trauma that has occurred within relationships is generally more difficult to treat than trauma resulting from traffic accidents or natural disasters.” “However, the most natural way that we humans calm down our distress is by being touched, hugged, and rocked.” So your healing can simply start with hugging the one you love. The key is that “Sensorimotor psychotherapy and somatic experiencing” equate to “the pleasure of completed action.” And “The best way to overcome ingrained patterns of submission is to restore a physical capacity to engage and defend.” Since “Being traumatized is not just an issue of being stuck in the past; it is just as much a problem of not being fully alive in the present.” The idea is “not desensitization but integration.” “However, drugs cannot ‘cure’ trauma; they can only dampen the expressions of a disturbed physiology.” “While trauma keeps us dumbfounded, the path out of it is paved with words, carefully assembled, piece by piece, until the whole story can be revealed.” Again, this is what my books do for me because continuing to remain silent is the equivalent of death itself. “Communicating fully is the opposite of being traumatized.” Although, “Yet another pitfall of language is the illusion that our thinking can easily be corrected if it ‘doesn’t make sense.’”

For flashbacks specifically, “It’s best to treat those thoughts as cognitive flashbacks—you don’t argue with them any more than you would argue with someone who keeps having visual flashbacks of a terrible accident. They are residues of traumatic incidents: thoughts they were thinking when, or shortly after, the traumas occurred that are reactivated under stressful conditions.” It is “the psychical trauma—or more precisely the memory of the trauma—acts like a foreign body which long after its entry must continue to be regarded as an agent that still is at work” like a splinter in the finger. Because “trauma interferes with the proper functioning of brain areas that manage and interpret experience.” “These powerful feelings are generated deep inside the brain and cannot be eliminated by reason or understanding.”

Instead of engaging in self-numbing activities like exercise or work, I am trying to learn how to step away, even if for a brief time, in order to relax during each and every day. “As long as we manage to stay calm, we can choose how we want to respond. Individuals with poorly regulated modulated autonomic nervous systems are easily thrown off balance, both mentally and physically.” So it is the goal to improve your heart rate variability (HRV). “One of the clearest lessons from contemporary neuroscience is that our sense of ourselves is anchored in a vital connection with our bodies.” But the “Trauma makes you feel as if you are stuck forever in a helpless state of horror. In yoga you learn that sensations rise to a peak and then fall.” And while “Pushing away intense feelings can be highly adaptive in the short run. […] The problems come later.” So we have to work at “reconfiguring a brain/mind system that was constructed to cope with the worst. Just as we need to revisit the parts of ourselves that developed the defensive habits that helped us to survive.”

Kolk explains that creating structures using things like “psychomotor therapy” can fill in the holes that trauma has created. Another new technique is neurofeedback, which “simply stabilizes the brain and increases resiliency, allowing us to develop more choices in how to respond.” It also “changes brain connectivity patterns; the mind follows by creating new patterns of engagement.” This can lead to improvements in focus, which before remained unfocused because our “brains are not organized to pay careful attention to what is going on in the present moment.” Like “when people hear a statement that mirrors their inner state, the right amygdala momentarily lights up, as if to underline the accuracy of the reflection.” So “we can create new emotional scenarios intense and real enough to defuse and counter some of those old ones.” Whereas “Often there is excessive activity in the right temporal lobe, the fear center of the brain, combined with too much frontal slow-wave activity. This means that their hyperaroused emotional brains dominate their mental life.”

The hope at the end of the book is that “We are on the verge of becoming a trauma-conscious society.” Since “Trauma constantly confronts us with our fragility and with man’s inhumanity to man but also with our extraordinary resilience.” I needed this book to show me that I did not escape my traumatic upbringing in childhood unscathed. Just because I held my emotions inside did not mean that I was just fine. My genetics and environment forced me into using anxiety as a survival mechanism, which in many ways both saved me while it fed upon me, especially once the traumatic situations had come to an end. It took me another decade of my life in fear to start understanding the full scope of my trauma.

I hope to end the cycle of emotional abuse, silence surrounding mental illnesses and trauma, and the destructive nature of enforced visitations brought on by the divorce and subsequent eruption of the nuclear family. I want my children to feel securely attached to me and my husband. I want to give them a forever home with a solid set of friends they can grow up with into adulthood. I desire nothing more than to worship each child individually and to always hear their voices, take them seriously, and do what they believe will make them happy. I sincerely wish to give them the firm foundation of love that I was grateful to have had before the storm came and to avoid such senseless storms for them in their futures.

***

Links: https://www.amazon.com/Body-Keeps-Score-Healing-Trauma/dp/0143127748; https://www.amazon.com/Anxiety-Disorders-Phobias-Cognitive-Perspective/dp/046500587X; https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Therapy-Emotional-Disorders-Aaron/dp/0452009286; https://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Unwanted-Intrusive-Thoughts-Frightening/dp/1626254346; https://calusarecovery.com/blog/f41-1-diagnosis-a-comprehensive-guide/; https://www.besselvanderkolk.com/; https://beckinstitute.org/about/dr-aaron-t-beck/; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Centennial-AYN-RAND/dp/B0027M0HV6/ref=pd_lpo_sccl_2/143-1155917-6053026?pd_rd_w=CVlwr&content-id=amzn1.sym.4c8c52db-06f8-4e42-8e56-912796f2ea6c&pf_rd_p=4c8c52db-06f8-4e42-8e56-912796f2ea6c&pf_rd_r=8R1G0Q3YJ6X1E280D1P0&pd_rd_wg=SlV45&pd_rd_r=e4afa001-e2db-4811-8790-756fad892f06&pd_rd_i=B0027M0HV6&psc=1; https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/media/this-is-your-brain-on-drugs-tweaked-for-todays-parents.html

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Objectivists Divide Over Trump

As early as middle school and certainly by high school, I noticed I’d have these gut feelings and anger well up inside of me when certain teachers taught. But at that time, I couldn’t always put my finger on why. I’d often overhear Michael Savage’s voice on the radio while my dad was cooking dinner, explaining current events. Then I remember listening attentively to my dad’s interpretation of what my teachers said at the dinner table. Finally, after discovering Ayn Rand and her work, I had answers to all my gut feelings. I found the individual, the “I” that was me, and the liberal ideology that possessed many of my teachers.

Objectivism gave me the oxygen I needed amidst the barrage of confusion, trolley problems, anti-reality, magical, supernatural, illogical thinking washing over me from all sides of my higher education. She showed me that life doesn’t have to be complicated, with one tragedy inevitably following another because man has original sin. She revealed that focusing on reality and the truth will allow me to create the life I want to live, one that increases my happiness.

I truly wish that Ayn Rand was still alive today because I’m having that same gut feeling again without the answers and it is all over: Donald Trump. There is this growing rift between what seems to be the scholars at the Ayn Rand Institute and other outside Objectivists. The scholars seem to hate Trump while the outsiders tend to love him. It’s like watching my parents divorce all over again. Most of my close family and friends love Trump. But every time I listen to another ARI podcast or see a post on X from someone heavily involved in ARI, all I hear are negatives about him and my stomach squirms.

I should note, however, that endorsing a specific political candidate does not make you an Objectivist or not. It is when you agree with her four basic pillars of Objectivism and its overall goal that makes you one, so really this should not give people a reason to drop a philosophical label that they want to carry.

If Ayn Rand was here today, I believe that she would surprise the people at ARI and give a clarifying answer as to why Trump is not Hitler but now an American icon. I say this with the deep conviction that the only person left on this earth to have spent the most time with her when she was alive and named him her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, stated at the end of a video in 2020 that “I wanna add one sentence: I am voting for Trump. That’s it. Okay. […] I’m not arguing, but I heard somebody say, ‘No Objectivist would vote for Trump.’ And I’m still steaming over that, so I’m tryin’ to publicize the fact that whoever said that is crazy.” Please read the comments to this video that I’ll link below to read who may have been the one to say that if you’re curious. I will not be bringing in any ARI-related people’s names into this video. However, I believe that ARI cut the end of this video section off. Now, I understand that they as a nonprofit cannot and will not endorse a particular candidate, but they could have left Peikoff’s commentary in. To me, it is a huge slap in the face to the creator of the Institute itself. He’s not old and losing his mind, like Biden.

Not to mention that Peikoff is the very man who wrote the DIM Hypothesis, which sends out the warning call about our country falling into religious totalitarianism and, yet, he does not view Trump as that exact type of threat that the Democrats are pointing to. That should tell Objectivists something. Trump has never seemed that religious, which is precisely why he chose Pence as his vice president back in 2016 in order to win the vote of the evangelical Christians. Now, if this was all about Pence running, who talked about god every time he opened his mouth, then I’d be more worried.

I think that Ayn Rand is much more conservative, at least morally, than many modern-day Objectivist intellectuals are acknowledging. Remember her scenes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, where the male lead is always sexually dominant over the submissive female? Remember how she said that no woman would even want to be president because she wouldn’t have a man to look up to? Remember how she had a distaste for feminists even back then? Rand certainly has articles or statements about the border and immigration and abortion that are considered anti-conservative stances today, and she makes that known, but to talk about those topics constantly as if those political policies made up the entire system is foolish. The same goes for placing a spotlight on sexism and racism. Ayn Rand wrote one essay on the topic and moved on. She is not like the tribal leftists of today who are making those topics the central theme of their entire lives, a religion. Conservatives do not want the propaganda shoved down their throats anymore.

In a recent ARI podcast, the hosts do not call this a right or left issue but a pro-Enlightenment versus an anti-Enlightenment one. While I believe that is true, I also can see how the right tends to be more pro-reality than the anti-reality liberals in this day and age. As long as the religious right is able to keep their god in the sky and not affect those of us on earth, I see no real threat from that side. Whereas, the liberals are actively attempting to change our language, utterly obscuring it with made-up terms and pulling statistics out of nothing in order to alter what is right in front of them: reality. For example, they refuse to acknowledge that a child with XY chromosomes is a man and XX chromosomes is a woman. They refuse to admit that communism in any form will never work based simply on human nature. They refuse to see that the nuclear family is the best way to raise children. I do not get these ideas from god but from observing other people and animals. Nature guided Darwin just as well back then as today. There are natural laws set in place, and the only way to ever attain true happiness is to adhere to those laws. That’s why we exercise, eat a healthy diet, brush our teeth to avoid decay. Therefore, I see the left as a much larger threat than the right.

Sure, when you just watch the news, you see tribalistic and often idiotic things said from both sides, but they are anchors breaking real time news with very little time to think or a long time to elaborate, that’s how you get sound bites. There has always been this kind of “yellow journalism” or bickering in politics—that’s just the nature of the game. But if you talk to the men and women who are not in the spotlight, they all are bringing more than just “tribalistic views” to the table. I have seen people talking about what our founding fathers wanted for this country and others who still take the time to reread the Declaration of Independence—true patriots are to be found in this country and they hate to see the American culture damaged by anti-reality groups. It is these patriots who are bringing their morals with them to vote for Trump—you will just not hear it on the news. I think many scholars are simplifying the real cultural issues at stake here, perhaps because they are surrounded by an echo chamber of their friends and not out in the middle of the noise like I am. There is a way of life that many Americans feel they must protect. I’ve seen the “trad wives” on social media and the conservative men who just want to live out in the prairie in peace—without any news or politicians in sight. There is a culture of family first still left in America, of parents responsibly shaping the next generation, which is being incessantly chiseled away at by the left. That is the threat. Trump may be their antidote to the “woke virus.”

ARI always points out that we can’t be proponents of a negative, such as atheism. And yet, all I’ve heard are negatives on the state of the world and the people running it from the Institute lately. What happened to that moral spirit that Ayn Rand could conjure up and lighten an entire room with? Unfortunately, one thing that scholars do to language is beat it to death and then suck out every last ounce of emotion left for the reader or listener. It is also very easy to stay morally “pure” as a scholar in their tower while a presidential candidate is meant to represent the voice of an entire nation. Trump must be open to hearing and helping all different kinds of people.

Yes, I think the first election cycle around, he was on the defensive and his method was to resort to childish name-calling. I don’t think his speeches were focused enough and they did sound very pragmatic, as if he had no philosophical stance. However, even an older man can learn. I, along with the world, have watched Trump learn, mature, and grow into the leader we see today. That was proven on July 13, 2024, when the twenty-year-old loner, who probably was just severely depressed and not particularly politically motivated, got up on that roof and took a shot at the former president.

If that were me up on that stage I would have screamed, peed myself, and cried running off with my Secret Service agents (and, yes, I will grant you that I am a woman who is currently pregnant), but still I would have been petrified. Instead, here we see a man raise himself up with a sense of defiance and anger written all over his face. This was not a “marketing moment” as someone (who shall not be named) said about him. This was the face of a man asking openly, “How dare you try to extinguish my life? A life that I have made and poured all my values into it. I will fight, fight, fight for my right to live.” He was a man in those first shocking moments, not just a presidential candidate. And I do believe that Ayn Rand would have seen that heroic picture of the blood on his face and the flag waving proudly behind him with a tear in her eye. I do not believe that she would have skeptically rolled her eyes, called him a narcissist, and yawned about how he is so lost in himself that he knew this would become a historic picture moment for himself. It’s that kind of attempt at character assassination that makes my gut hurt (and, again, not just because I’m pregnant).

In the days following, Trump has not taken the time to even digest what happened, but the look on his face at the Republican National Convention was different. Being directly shot at and nearly killed, and acknowledging that fact, changes a man. You could see it on his face. There is trauma there. But the liberals will call him “weak” and “elderly looking” and “tired.” No, he is a man with growing pains, a man beginning to understand that people believe in him, a man who cannot let them down no matter what.

Trump is coming out as more moderate too these days. Supposedly, he has left abortion out of his conservative party stance. Now, perhaps this, again, shows that he is a pragmatist or “has no ideas,” but he may also just be listening to the middle of his base. Trump wants to unify the American people together, as long as we are all moving in the right direction, toward reality and not away from it. One president is not going to be able to turn all of America into Galt’s Gulch overnight. That’s a fantasy.

Go with me for a moment on a trip to the future. Perhaps borders are still needed right now until we all become one global country, essentially. I see it already happening with all our translation apps and social media since I can easily communicate now with people from all over the world regardless of the language barrier. Foreign nations have been for a while now learning English as their second language, and I foresee that everyone will because it is a mongrel language anyway, with many of its roots coming from other cultures.

The news is international at this point and there will be no stopping it now. The longer we have the Internet, the more integrated everyone will be on this planet. Someday, I think we will all simply become the human race with the individual as truly the smallest minority. Cultures will become a thing that historians study and people engage in just for fun and entertainment. The further along science gets to answering our deepest questions, the more religion will atrophy, and nations will become less and less dissimilar.

A free market working on an international scale would bring all of us up and perhaps Bryan Johnson’s message of “Don’t Die” might finally be the only mission we all have. But until then, there are terrorists and criminals and even cultural differences that still make borders something that every nation desires. Until new generations are raised in similar environments, we cannot have the free-for-all that we in the West, at least, desire. Religion (the kind found on both the right and the left) has, can, and does still kill.

This brings me closer to one of my final points: I think it’s absolutely offensive that people are calling it “an act of god” that Trump survived when a rally attendant was shot to death just behind him and two others severely injured. Was Corey’s life less worthy of living? Would his daughters rather have kept their dad alive or Trump? Did god ignore Corey to shine his light on Trump? No, this was pure luck.

Let’s say I took Pascal’s wager seriously, which allow me to remind my audience is “the argument that it is in one’s own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise.” Let’s say I was wrong. Then I’d be banished to hell, along with all the other wonderful people who have walked this earth and questioned and maintained their goodness, like Ayn Rand herself and, yes, even Donald Trump.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxhzlWsl0o&ab_channel=AdamSmasher; https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100308948#:~:text=Pascal’s%20wager%20the%20argument%20that,any%20advantage%20in%20believing%20otherwise.; https://www.radiohalloffame.com/michael-savage; https://theobjectivestandard.com/2016/11/ayn-rands-intellectual-development/;
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donald-Trump/images-videos; https://courses.aynrand.org/people/leonard-peikoff/; https://aynrand.org/novels/; https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-ideal-from-the-ayn-rand-institute/id1515023771; https://www.vox.com/culture/360711/trump-fist-pump-photo-explained-expert-media-savvy-politics; https://abc7.com/live-updates/rnc-2024-donald-trump-makes-appearance-on-day-1-of-the-republican-national-convention-in-milwaukee/15060290/; https://x.com/bryan_johnson/status/1788256385224024236; https://conflictedcollegechristians.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/pascals-wager/

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Religion Versus America

I felt compelled today to read this entire lecture given by Leonard Peikoff in 1986 because the message is still just as relevant, if not more so, today than back then. After hearing talk show hosts, like Ben Shapiro, conservative friends, and right-wing publishing companies tell me over and over again that America was built by our “God-fearing founding fathers” and in order to save America we need to bring back “under God,” I finally had enough.

I wish I could shout this message into a nationwide microphone that there is not only a path between the “atheist Democrats” and the “religious Republicans.” It’s a false dichotomy! What about the citizens of the United States who are pro-freedom, pro-individuality, pro-reason? Aren’t they the only true bastion of morality and spirit left in this country, the ones who kept it afloat for all these years?

Allow me to read Dr. Peikoff’s powerful words to remind everyone how America was founded and truly flourished in spite of the religious influence of the times.

To read the entire lecture, please visit: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/religion-versus-america/.

***

Links: https://courses.aynrand.org/people/leonard-peikoff/; https://www.amazon.com/Voice-Reason-Objectivist-Thought-Library/dp/0452010462?tag=aynrandorgcampus-20; https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.58837/

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Don’t Die

I recently read Bryan Johnson’s free e-book, Don’t Die, where he lays out his philosophy behind his Blueprint protocol. Unfortunately, I found his core message, “to fire the brain,” to go directly against the Objectivist philosophy of which I ascribe to. Objectivism holds that

Man’s essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Man’s mind is his basic means of survival—his only means of gaining knowledge . . . .

In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival” (“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 16).

Our brain is running the entire show, and it is a part of our entire body. You cannot sever one from the other (see “mind-body dichotomy” in the Ayn Rand Lexicon). In fact, your brain functions better when you are sleeping, eating, and exercising right. I think Bryan Johnson needs to clarify what he means when he discusses how our, perhaps, lazy, or depressed, or what have you personality wants to commit self-harm. But that is more of a psychological issue and not a physical one that the mind and body are failing to perform. Therapy is probably where most people need to start.

In his latest YouTube video, entitled “Watch These 39 Minutes If You Want To Live To 200+,” Bryan Johnson is giving a talk to an audience and toward the very end he says, “We do align on this one objective [don’t die]. […] You step one step above, we’re gonna become tribal.” Basically, he’s claiming that all people can agree on “don’t die.” However, if he knew Ayn Rand’s philosophy, then he would see that he’s wrong. Even in his discussion of “Evening Bryan,” who is the self-harm part of him, he is admitting that sometimes psychologically we are not fighting to live.

What I am saying is that not all people genuinely want to live or be alive or actively not die. Look at smokers or alcoholics or drug addicts—they all know that they are killing themselves and yet they continue to do harm with substances. In Rand’s fiction, there are numerous “villains,” who are deemed such because they are for death as opposed to life. They seek to take down society with them. It’s similar to school shooters who are so depressed that their own “life goal” is to cause pain to others and take them with him into the void. People are not in agreement over “don’t die.” In fact, as I’ve said on this channel before, people are constantly making that decision every single day they continue to live: live or die, live or die, eat the apple or eat the cake for lunch, smoke this cigarette or quit today, live or die, live or die, feed my baby or skip feeding them, continue my college education or kill my roommate, live or die, live or die. It’s a constant hum in the background of our lives, whether we consciously acknowledge it or not.

Bryan Johnson seems to be a bit naïve about people in general, possibly from having been part of the Morman faith for so long before leaving it. That’s why I always advocate reading classic or literary fiction as a way to peer into someone’s mind for an honest depiction of the human mind.

Even I can remember the days in school when I was hiding from my struggles at home and homework kept my mind off the pain. And so, I would do my homework into the wee hours of the night from middle school up through college at the expense of my health. Internally, I was in survival mode, and I would have rather died than put the work down. On the outside, I may have looked happy and normal, albeit tired. But on the inside, I was combusting, full of fireworks and fury. My whole soul would put sleep on hold, taking my health hostage. I needed help. I needed therapy. Only now am I able to fix what I had broken, slowly, very slowly. But it is not my mind that needed firing, it was my emotions. But, of course, you can’t fire your emotions—they are there to serve as red flags to protect you. Listen to them! And go seek the help you need in order to continue to make healthy decisions to live a long, beautiful life.

***

Links: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/my/collections/125228–thomas-vanhuyse/anatomie/objecten#/RP-P-1903-A-23532,2; https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/DONT-DIE-by-Zero; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; http://aynrandlexicon.com/; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkS1Eww5jTc&ab_channel=BryanJohnson

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Common Sayings Reevaluated

1. Christians say, “I asked Jesus into my heart,” “I was born again,” or “I was saved,” or else we probably were not.
2. Christians don’t say hello, we “greet one another with a hug and a holy kiss.”
3. When Christians say goodbye, we declare, “Have a Jesus-filled day!”
4. To a complete stranger, a “good Christian” won’t hesitate to announce, “Jesus loves you, and so do I!”
5. Whether affectionately or with pity, you may never be sure, Christians often say, “Bless your heart,” which is always pronounced with thick southern sweetness. Go ahead and say it again. You know you want to: “Bless your heart.”
6. For grins or groans, now throw this in: “God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.” (But, you know, that’s not in the Bible, right?)
7. When the pastor preaches a powerful message and the choir’s songs are especially pleasing to the ear, Christians exclaim at the close of the service, “We had church!”
8. Wait just a minute. We don’t say, “The pastor preached a powerful message.” No, Christians say, “The pastor was Holy Ghost-filled and the Word of the Lord was anointed.”
9. Christians don’t have good days, we “get the victory!” And a great day is a “mountaintop experience.” Can someone say “Amen?”
10. Christians don’t have bad days, either! No, we’re “under attack from the devil, as Satan roams like a roaring lion to destroy us.”
11. Christians don’t ever say, “Have a good day!” We say, “Have a blessed day.”
12. Christians don’t have parties, we have “fellowship” and dinner parties are “pot blessings.”
13. Christian[s] don’t get depressed; we have “a spirit of heaviness.”
14. An enthusiastic Christian is “on fire for God!”
15. Christians don’t have discussions, we “share.”
16. Similarly, Christians don’t gossip, we “share prayer requests.”
17. Christians don’t tell stories, we “give a testimony” or a “praise report.”
18. When a Christian does not know how to respond to someone who is hurting, we utter, “Well, I’ll be praying for you.” After that comes, “God is in control.” Next, we say, “All things work together for good.” Should I keep ‘em coming? “If God closes a door, he’ll open a window,” and another favorite: “God allows everything for a purpose.”
19. Christians don’t make decisions, we are “led by the Spirit.”
20. Christians RSVP with phrases such as, “I’ll be there if it’s God’s will,” or “Lord willing and the creek don’t rise.”
21. When a Christian makes a mistake, we say, “I’m forgiven, not perfect.”
22. Christians know that a really terrible lie is “belched from the pit of hell.”
23. Christians don’t insult or say rude things to a brother or sister in the Lord. No, we “speak the truth in love.” However, if someone should mistakenly feel judged or rebuked, we say, “Hey, I’m just keepin’ it real.”
24. If a Christian meets someone who is stressed or anxious, we know they simply need to “let go and let God.”
25. Last but not least, Christians don’t die, we “go home to the be with the Lord.”
1. Objectivists say, “I asked the love of my life into my heart,” “I was born to be selfish and happy,” or “I was drowning in altruism,” or else we probably were not.
2. Objectivists don’t say hello, we “greet one another with a bow of the head with respect for each other’s individuality.”
3. When Objectivists say goodbye, we declare, “Have an ego-filled day!”
4. To a complete stranger, a “good Objectivist” won’t hesitate to announce, “Your reason loves you, and so do I!”
5. Whether affectionately or with pity, you may never be sure, Objectivists often say, “A is A,” which is always pronounced with thick southern sweetness. Go ahead and say it again. You know you want to: “A is A.”
6. For grins or groans, now throw this in: “You work in mysterious ways when you are not thinking rationally.” (But, you know, that’s not in Atlas Shrugged, right?)
7. When the Ayn Rand Institute podcaster preaches a powerful message and our internal choir’s songs are especially pleasing to the ear, Objectivists exclaim at the close of the episode, “We had logic!”
8. Wait just a minute. We don’t say, “The ARI podcaster preached a powerful message.” No, Objectivists say, “The podcaster was Reason-filled and the Word of the Self was anointed.”
9. Objectivists don’t have good days, we “feel a sense of life!” And a great day is a “benevolent universe experience.” Can someone say “Amen” like Peikoff?
10. Objectivists don’t have bad days, either! No, we’re “under attack from the whim-worshippers, as tribalists roam like a roaring lion to destroy us.”
11. Objectivists don’t ever say, “Have a good day!” We say, “Have a virtuous day.”
12. Objectivists don’t have parties, we have “OCON” and dinner parties are “pots of gold.”
13. Objectivists don’t get depressed; we have “a spirit of moral judgment.”
14. An enthusiastic Objectivist is “on fire for heroes!”
15. Objectivists don’t have discussions, we “debate.”
16. Similarly, Objectivists don’t gossip, we “share our honest opinions.”
17. Objectivists don’t tell stories, we “give a philosophical argument” or “praise Rand’s work.”
18. When an Objectivist does not know how to respond to someone who is hurting, we utter, “Well, I’ll be thinking of you.” After that comes, “You are in control.” Next, we say, “All things can be handled if you adapt.” Should I keep ‘em coming? “If an opportunity closes its door, a new one will open,” and another favorite: “Don’t leave your life to chance.”
19. Objectivists make decisions, we are “led by objective knowledge.”
20. Objectivists RSVP with phrases such as, “I’ll be there if it brings value to my life,” or “If I’m willing and the second-handers don’t rise.”
21. When an Objectivist makes a mistake, we say, “I’m perfect, just not omniscient, sorry.”
22. Objectivists know that a really terrible lie is “belched from the pit of delusion.”
23. Objectivists don’t insult or say rude things to a brother or sister in the community. No, we “speak the truth in love and the good.” However, if someone should mistakenly feel judged or rebuked, we say, “Hey, I’m just keepin’ it rational.”
24. If an Objectivist meets someone who is stressed or anxious, we know they simply need to “make a plan and execute.”
25. Last but not least, Objectivists don’t die, “it’s the world that will end.” [But, also, DON’T DIE—thank you, Bryan Johnson.]

***

Links: https://www.learnreligions.com/cliches-christians-say-700635; http://www.aynrandlexicon.com; https://medium.com/future-literacy/one-meal-23-hr-fast-100-nutrition-18187a2f5b

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Race and Gender Do Not Matter

I would like to open this piece with two different excerpts:

Here is the first one:

The bond between husband and wife is a strong one. Suppose the man had hunted her out and brought her back. The memory of her acts would still be there, and inevitably, sooner or later, it would be cause for rancor. When there are crises, incidents, a woman should try to overlook them, for better or for worse, and make the bond into something durable. The wounds will remain, with the woman and with the man, when there are crises such as I have described. It is very foolish for a woman to let a little dalliance upset her so much that she shows her resentment openly. He has his adventures–but if he has fond memories of their early days together, his and hers, she may be sure that she matters. 

And here is the second one:

You are part of my existence, part of myself. You have been in every line I have ever read, since I first came here, the rough common boy whose poor heart you wounded even then. You have been in every prospect I have ever seen since – on the river, on the sails of the ships, on the marshes, in the clouds, in the light, in the darkness, in the wind, in the woods, in the sea, in the streets. You have been the embodiment of every graceful fancy that my mind has ever become acquainted with. The stones of which the strongest London buildings are made, are not more real, or more impossible to displace with your hands, than your presence and influence have been to me, there and everywhere, and will be.

The first excerpt is from The Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikibu, which is widely considered to be the first novel in the world. The author lived from around 973 to 1014 or 1025 CE, and the book was written between 1000 and 1012 CE.

Now, the second excerpt is from Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, who is a more modern author of novels. The author lived from 1813 to 1870 CE, and the book was written in 1861 CE.

One was written by a Japanese woman living in the Heian period (or the High Middle Ages in European history).

The other was written by an English man living in the Victorian era.

Besides languages changing and translations done, are either of these texts unintelligible? Is there any sense of loss in meaning or emotion across time? Does understanding cease with one being from another race or gender than our own? No, no, and no again.

People today are falling into the tribalist trap. Just because you are, let’s say, a young Hispanic woman who has not seen a flash drive or a cassette tape outside of museums, does not mean that you cannot read a book from any time period and empathize with that writer. That is truly the magic of literature. Modern people can still have a dialogue of sorts with other people who have long since gone back into the earth, regardless of skin color or gender. It doesn’t matter! What literature does is bring honest thoughts to the fore.

Still unconvinced? Let’s take another example. But, first, let me warn you that these images may be a bit too graphic for some viewers as they are of real human cadaver arms. I recently came across the Institute of Human Anatomy’s YouTube channel, and in a couple of their videos, they go into the complex anatomy of the human hand.

Can you tell what race either arm is? Neither could I. The screenshot on the left is of a black man and the one on the right is of a white woman. Race is not a scientific concept but simply a social one. Even Shakespeare points this out in The Merchant of Venice when Shylock says, “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” We all migrated out of Africa and have not had that much time to evolve, so there is only a superficial difference between us based on environmental factors (that is only 0.1% of our DNA). Underneath our skin, we look the same. An apt Ayn Rand quote from The Virtue of Selfishness deserves its place here: “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” She also famously says in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, that “[t]he smallest minority on earth is the individual.”

The same thinking goes for sexism. Like many other people I’ve heard speak on this subject, I was one of those tomboy girls. I wore jeans and a T-shirt for my entire academic career. I found that these clothes were the most comfortable to live in because that way my outfits didn’t distract away from my studies. Did I think I was attracted to girls because of the way I dressed? No. Did I feel like I was in the wrong body because of it? No. I really did not feel “feminine” until I started having sex. Being with the opposite sex made me feel more submissive and I fit into the other half of the puzzle piece well. The bond between a man and a woman does feel very natural. However, all that time beforehand was purely a time for the mind to grow without restraint. In today’s day and age, my education was not withheld or manipulated to be on a different level or about different subjects from the boys. I learned about anything and everything I could (and I still am today). All of that to say, sex does not, nor should it, play a role in the education of a child.

The human mind is our tool of survival, and there is no race or gender divide that can stop us from using it and communicating our thoughts clearly with one another. There is no “separate reality” or “my truth.” There is no “black perspective” or “white perspective.” There is no age too old or young to understand one another once language is attained and maintained. There is no beauty standard that makes us unable to speak to each other. There is no reason a man cannot explain something to a woman and vice versa.

The only difference to be found concerns varying cultures. While Ayn Rand talks about culture as “not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men (The Virtue of Selfishness),” I do think that there can be bad cultures that uphold negative things as values.

The battles of ideas and values play out in various cultures, but most of them sink and only a few of them swim over the long term. For example, history proves to us that killing off a group based on superficial reasons causes war and loss and suffering. The culture quickly forgoes that as a value once they lose the war. A culture centered around gang violence and stealing from stores only tears down its followers and destroys itself from the inside out. But a culture where individual happiness is the focus provides people with diets and exercise plans and enlightenment ideas. There are numerous examples I could run through concerning what makes up a good culture versus a bad one, but I do not have time for that here. Come up with your own. What divides us, at least in first-world countries today, is not race or gender but a culture war where tribalism is rearing its ugly head.

I am here to remind you that race and gender do not matter. Period. Stop listening to the news that is telling you otherwise. Stop teaching students that there is a veil between us that separates our “realities” and our “truths” from being acknowledged by “the other.” Stop saying that this group can’t be held accountable because of the color of their skin. Stop whispering the things that should be said aloud. Stop playing the victim and remember that there is only one race: the human race.

***

Links: https://www.amazon.com/Tale-Genji-Penguin-Classics-Deluxe/dp/014243714X/ref=asc_df_014243714X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=353567357648&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=261658845120380685&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9018402&hvtargid=pla-433833151184&psc=1&mcid=adaf1d9913d1301d99b5adca204c77c3&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=79744846988&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=353567357648&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=261658845120380685&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9018402&hvtargid=pla-433833151184&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzt_m_vH2gwMVySitBh3w8gDmEAQYASABEgJdE_D_BwE; https://www.amazon.com/Great-Expectations-Barnes-Noble-Classics/dp/1593080069; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y69D76RdMs&ab_channel=InstituteofHumanAnatomy; https://www.amazon.com/Merchant-Venice-Folger-Shakespeare-Library/dp/0743477561/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2IMMOBYCCR9BS&keywords=the+merchant+of+venice&qid=1706129264&s=books&sprefix=the+merchant+of+venice%2Cstripbooks%2C122&sr=1-1; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R0VQVTO930S9&keywords=the+virtue+of+selfishness+by+ayn+rand&qid=1706129274&s=books&sprefix=the+virtue+of+%2Cstripbooks%2C108&sr=1-1; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Victimization Risks, Murder, and How to Morally Judge an Individual

I have said before and will continue to say that the less you focus on reality, the more compounded your problems become. The police are familiar with what is called “victimization risk,” which is when an individual is engaged in lifestyle choices that may lead to a higher likelihood of a crime being committed on that person. For example, when an individual works as a prostitute and walks the street alone at night looking for customers, they are engaging in activities where there is a high victimization risk to them. It is not “blaming the victim” but understanding the reality of that person’s choices. What comes with being aware of reality and surviving another day as a human being is a code of rational ethics. Therefore, that prostitute should lower her risk by going out with a buddy at night or leaving the business entirely in search of a new, less risky line of work. Their chances of surviving another day increase when mitigating and rational actions are taken. An individual who locks their doors at night is engaging in low victimization risk behavior and, therefore, making the rational, moral choice.

We must use this type of moral judgment properly based on a person’s actions. I believe that is what is attracting so many people nowadays to Dr. Grande’s YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@DrGrande). He is a mental health counselor who has taken an interest in analyzing criminal cases and their outcomes. He looks at each context like a rational juror and tries to make sense of the seemingly senseless violence a person commits. It is not just another true crime channel but one where the “why” that everyone so longs for is answered to the best of his ability.

We should all aspire to understand people in the way Dr. Grande does because we certainly all have the capacity to understand, empathize, and analyze each other’s actions through moral judgment. In fact, I believe that more people could prevent crimes if they only knew how to judge a person’s actions properly because, unfortunately, by the time the law intervenes, they can only look at the actions of a person after their morality has thoroughly disintegrated. I believe it is often too late to change a person once they have committed a serious crime. They needed moral guidance or help long before they thought of committing any kind of wrongdoing.

As a bit of an aside, the writer Dostoyevsky has one of his characters, from The Brothers Karamazov, say that “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” He believed atheists would murder without a second thought, unlike his conscience-stricken Raskolnikov character in Crime and Punishment who “finds God” in the end. But this is entirely false. This abstract thing we call conscience is what keeps us from crossing the line drawn in ethics between good and evil. We would all feel as guilty as Raskolnikov for killing a person with or without god. Our desire to survive and thrive keeps us from murdering each other. A rational morality keeps us from destruction.

It is in this spirit of moral judgment and admiration for Dr. Grande’s work that I am presenting an essay I wrote the day after Elliot Rodger on May 23, 2014, killed six people and injured fourteen others. He shot, stabbed, and ran over with his vehicle as many people as he could find in what would later be named the “2014 Isla Vista killings,” forever labeling him as an infamous mass murderer. He left a YouTube video of his own titled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution” and a long manifesto called “My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger,” both of which I have seen and read and have linked down in the description section. And so without further ado:

***

My Thoughts on the CA Mass Murderer, Elliot Rodger

[Note: This article is not meant to sympathize or place the predator’s life above those of the victims. To all of those involved in this tragedy, I hope that this psychological look into the murderer’s past will prevent instances of this happening again in the future.]

The first thing I dared to watch was Elliot Rodger’s final video. In it, he struck me as just a kid trying to build himself up as a tragic anti-hero. He was lost in a story concocted by his own mind, and that was what made me want to research this horrific tragedy. Since that final video, I have read the 140-page long manifesto and watched the other YouTube videos he had posted before the final one. These were all highly disturbing, and I think that many of my conclusions do not include the fact that he did have Asperger’s syndrome. Asperger’s syndrome is clear here with his unusual facial expressions, his difficulty socializing, and his apparent lack of empathy. However, that does not excuse his violent outburst on the evening of May 23, 2014.

The philosopher, Hannah Arendt, wrote about the Eichmann trial that occurred in the 1960s. Eichmann was hired by the Nazi Party in Germany, and he was given the task of deporting all of the Jews—he sent hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths. People called him “evil” and a “villain,” but once Arendt began studying this wrinkled, pathetic old man—she coined the phrase, “banality of evil.” This phrase meant that Eichmann was really just a dumb, dependent, title-obsessive man. He was a cog in the machine, but a deadly one. Eichmann did not think that he was responsible because he truly believed that he was just “following orders.” Arendt believed that this weasel was telling the truth. Therefore, at the time, she did not believe that people were “radically evil”—that they were not born evil.

After researching this case, I have come to the conclusion that this was a broken boy. He lived his life on a “6th grade loop” which continuously played until he went to stop it by force. Even his manifesto is written at about the 6th grade level, albeit with a few “new” vocabulary words included toward the end. But his ideas are especially childish. He was given everything, and when he wasn’t, he would have temper tantrums.

Elliot Rodger was an irrationally selfish, materialistic, dependent child. If any of you have ever read Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, this child was a real Peter Keating. He built up absolutely no self-esteem whatsoever, and therefore, his ego (the “I” part of him) was nonexistent. This set him up for disaster.

He blames his parents for this, and so do I.

Parents are the most influential beings that a person can have—they tend to make or break the future adult. These parents did not give him a set of moral values to live by—and religion does not even need to factor in here. Learning philosophy is invaluable because it makes you question and reassess all of your most basic premises. You think logically and fix any emotionalist responses to rational concepts. This child needed a philosophy lesson badly.

Elliot Rodger emphasizes how much he was “living in the moment” and so thoroughly enjoyed his childhood, that when he was rejected by the outside world—he threw yet another tantrum…this time with tragic consequences. This could have been prevented had he been raised right—not by several nannies and several new houses, regardless of his Asperger’s syndrome.

This behavior was chosen, this is not an issue concerning his Asperger’s (although a symptom can be obsessive behavior, like the one he had toward objects, women, and difficulty socializing). But that cannot cause violence, and his premises were all wrong. The violence stemmed from a lack of knowledge. This is what Hannah Arendt and Ayn Rand meant when they both wrote about how “evil” occurs. It happens when people become irreparably broken. It happens when parents neglect their children emotionally and do not teach them about virtue. It happens when they are given everything, up until they hit the “real world” where they have to fight for survival. Capitalism forces men to prove themselves. It is the ultimate “Alpha Male” system which this child could not win—and so he tried to take it away from others.

Again, for those of you familiar with Ayn Rand’s character, Peter Keating, Peter quickly worked his way up the career ladder by stealing, looting, robbing other people, and passing their work off as his own. He was labeled a “second-hander” who took from the “first-handers” or else he would throw tantrums, similar to Rodger’s. In the beginning, he is hailed as the best architect in the country, but by the end, he is a miserable, broken, and “evil” man. This is the story of Elliot Rodger, who laughs at “the irony of the world” and feels holier-than-thou without any reasons to back up his premises.

But do not call this child a “madman”—he was a person robbed of morals. A madman is someone who is incomprehensible, someone who cannot go from Point A to Point B. That is a madman. This is someone who grew up in a surprisingly ordinary way (besides having a famous father). He talks about movies that all kids from the 90s have seen and video games that we’ve all played at some point. And even his concerns in middle school were shared by many other lonely kids at the time (myself included). But we saw ourselves as better than those who were considered “popular.” We had our set of values and we strived to achieve success, while the “popular kids” tended to fail. We grew up and moved on—allowing ourselves only to find better, more worthy people to include in our lives. But this child got caught in it, and would not budge until he got his way…

“I wanted to live in a world of fairness”—that is the common creed of the Communists and Socialists of our age, and that is exactly the creed that Elliot Rodger grew up living with. But that does not bring happiness. For material objects are not the ends, they are the products of a person’s labor. Labor is the means to get to happiness or living a good life—(if it is honest work, of course). But this boy was never taught that he had to work for his possessions.

Rodger then goes on and on for 40 pages in his manifesto about video games. This has been a controversial topic in many of these violent tragedies. But video games, in particular, seem to have destroyed many young people. However, I think it is important to note that his feelings began before ever playing a video game, but his situation grew exponentially worse when he was pretty much given free rein with these games during his adolescence. Parents need to watch what their kids are playing, watching, reading, and listening to because there is so much garbage out there today. In fact, in his manifesto, Rodger used video games as a way to fight the reality that he was facing. He used World of Warcraft as inspiration for his ideas of a “War on Women.” Elliot Rodger blurred games with real life because he was never taught the difference.

Elliot frequently uses the words “little,” “obsessed,” “weak,” “worthless,” and “starved” as terms of describing himself and his mental state. The kid never learned how to live on his own. He never was allowed to become self-reliant. He was extremely sheltered. “The more lonely I felt, the more angry I became,” he writes at one point. This is a typical feeling that “evil characters” feel before they lash out at the world. He was living out a fantasy storyline of his own—like when he wrote, “If I can’t have it, I will destroy it.” After that, sex became a negative thing for him and by 17 he wanted to outlaw sex. This means that for 6 years, he had been planning and plotting a way to seek revenge on others. There was no real instance where he “became a madman,” but a slow progression of events that were laid down on a boy without any moral guidance or principles.

On his “forced” plane trip to Morocco, Rodger decided that he wanted to die. That is the moment where he lost hope because he was never allowed to have any control over his life. He did not have any agency—no ego, no self-esteem—and this led him to the radical state that he worked himself up to in his twenties.

Movies and video games surrounded this kid, and he lived in a fantasy realm for most of his life. (And Soumaya, his stepmother, seemed to be the only adult capable of trying to teach Rodger something, albeit in the least effective way). Then, in his mid-teens, he turned to books, instead of thinking about his future and getting a job. These books provided him with the “anti-hero” type of mindset that he had always wanted, and he amateurishly clung to them.

By page 66 of Rodger’s manifesto, he begins using terms like “destiny” and “injustice” to prove that he was made by some “creator” to right all the unfairness that happened to him in the world. The amount of hate that he had for others was very high when he was only 18. He says at one point in his manifesto, “I am an intellectual who is destined for greatness. I would never perform a low-class service job.” But that is exactly the problem. A true intellectual or “great man,” as Aristotle discusses in depth, does not change based on external forces. The “great man” cares for a few things that bring happiness (eudemonia) to his life, and the rest is irrelevant. He has a proportionate amount of self-confidence, and he quietly respects himself for the virtues that he has learned over the years. This sentence is yet another temper tantrum, only in adult form, but it renders him more of a child than anything. Elliot Rodger was not an intellectual, but a bitter fool—a frustrated and miserable Peter Keating archetype due to his parents’ neglect.

Rodger repeatedly asked his mother (and later on several more occasions) to “sacrifice her well-being for the sake of [his] own happiness” by marrying another rich man. Elliot’s hope was only reignited when he thought that some base exterior change could fix all of his moral problems—only to be dismayed once again…and again…and again. This child calls his mother “selfish” for not remarrying into a rich family—when what he really is saying is that she is not “sacrificing” herself for his needs. She is not giving up her life for him. She is not being altruistic because that is a vice (read Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness for more).

And yet, his “selfish” mother continued to support him and told him he had a talent for writing. But his motive from the beginning was to get rich quick off of his “bestseller” books, and then maybe girls would like him. This motivation never works. He didn’t even mention that perhaps some girl would like him for his talent to produce something of his own, proving just how lost he was. Elliot considered himself to be talentless and fervently refused to work or produce anything at all that would have given him some kind of value. Rodger continues to write in his manifesto that he “deserves” things when, in reality, he does not. Rodger did not earn (nor try to earn) a single thing in his life. He was never taught that money could not solve his problems. Money is merely another reward for the productive, creative thoughts that you make, but nothing more. Rodger looked to rewards as ends in themselves: money, girls, fame.

This kid never took the responsibility into his own hands of actually trying to change his life. He would pray to the stars and the universe, but never to himself and his own self-esteem. Rodger did not understand that money cannot replace moral values. Every time that he “actively” tried to change his life, he would never approach a girl or try to communicate with her. He made continual excuses due to his extremely low level of self-esteem. This isolated him further (not to mention looking for those bright and intelligent girls in all the wrong places). He writes at one point, “I was a ghost”—little did he know that he had died morally way before any of this took place.

He blamed society, not himself, for denying him pleasure. What a skewed view of reality is that? Rodger had to try to open himself up to new experiences. If people aren’t worth your time (usually the “popular kids”), then don’t even bat an eyelash at them. Focus on the positives.

Currently, in the media, he is being called racist, sexist, entitled, elitist, spoiled, and these labels are true. He had attacked groups because he lacked an ego of his own. He was shaped by groups himself. He didn’t know what being an individual entails. Rodger may have said to himself that he was special, but he didn’t really know what he was, besides what others said of him. Elliot Rodger was an altruist, a self-loathing looter who lived with an “anti-life” mentality. For by actively rejecting sex, he accepted death.

He could not be fixed after he grew up without any value-based foundations.

By page 87 of the manifesto, Rodger openly declares that he believed he could kill another man. He had prepared himself mentally, and truly felt “worthless” at this point. You see, there was no “snap in his mental state.” Rodger had been boiling over since his temper tantrums at the age of 3. This child never grew up, and could not handle living alone. His parents are to blame, just as much as he himself is to be blamed.

He was so completely self-absorbed without having a real “self.” I have heard people use the term “narcissist,” which may be the correct term because it has such a negative connotation with it. However, “rational selfishness” is not a bad thing, according to Ayn Rand (again, read The Virtue of Selfishness). There is an important distinction to be made between those who do things to promote their own happiness and those who are hurting others in order to obtain some unidentified fantasy.

On page 101 of Elliot’s manifesto, he mentions explicitly that he wanted “revenge.” At the age of 20, Elliot Rodger declared that he was done with hope and expecting things to change. He understood that he was living in a vicious cycle, but he didn’t understand why. It is here that he also begins talking about his “Day of Retribution.” He had been slowly concocting this plan for over a year. This was premeditated mass murder. Someone at any point could have stopped this, especially his parents. Yes, his parents did hire a few psychiatrists toward the end (according to Elliot), but it was already too late. His plan was already in action.

Rodger notes that, at first, he felt sick at the thought of holding a gun and possibly using it in his plan, which means that he had a conscience. By page 109 of the manifesto, he decided to plan out a “mass murder.” He felt compelled to do it because he was so focused on himself and what his world led him to. Rodger did not care about the world outside of his own narrative (he never mentions 9/11 or the war in Iraq), and that was a major mistake.

Elliot Rodger did not have a “twisted world,” but a “twisted logic.” He thought that Point A (money) would lead him to Point B (girls) which would equal Point C (“peaceful revenge”). If that line of thought did not work out, then he was a worthless outcast, and a loser, which could only equate to violent revenge in his mind.

There is a particularly female-hating passage on page 117 of Elliot’s manifesto, where he “comes up” with this “original” idea that women are like a plague that needs to be controlled and quarantined. This is where many people say that he is a “misogynistic psychopath.” However, he seems to be placing all of his frustrations on females, (even though he seemed to have a pretty good track record with his grandmothers and mother). He was venting his hatred for all of humanity onto a particular group, and once again—just as Hitler did with the Jews—it’s called selecting a scapegoat.

Rodger believed that his act would cause some tremendous change, but it didn’t. Instead, his case was added to the growing pile of an increasing problem concerning mass murderers in this country. He was not philosophically learned or intelligent to any degree, because the first thing that educated people do is think. Rationally. But Elliot Rodger behaved in exactly the same way that he claimed girls were by “behaving irrationally.”

One important idea that should be pointed out is the religious undertone that his manifesto espouses. He wanted to play god, but he also referred to the sex that people had as “heavenly” and that he was living in “hell.” Although he doesn’t seem to be very religious, this Judeo-Christian view of the world was ingrained in his perspective of it.

Elliot claims toward the end of his manifesto that he never lost that last flicker of hope—he thought that in some miraculous way, he could be saved—but it was all too late without him even realizing it.

“Give me, give me, give me” was this child’s war cry. It was just another tantrum…but it hurt so many. Rodger felt entitled, as many people have been stating. He was not “a madman,” but a kid who grew up without any values, and after a series of circular events—he concluded that man is evil. His last straw was in Santa Barbara.

Elliot Rodger professed himself as a “god” and as the “good guy” and wrote that “Finally, at long last, I can show the world my true worth” as the last line in his manifesto—but the thing is, he never had any worth.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/@DrGrande; https:www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLLy1Awig0E&ab_channel=IntoTheFireTrueCrimeStories; https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/rodger_my_twisted_world.pdf; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1YXNM861KJ1O4&keywords=the+virtue+of+selfishness+by+ayn+rand&qid=1700164079&s=books&sprefix=the+virtue+of+sel%2Cstripbooks%2C178&sr=1-1

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

“Nobody’s Perfect” and Other Garbage Idioms

Everyone always says “nobody’s perfect” to somehow arouse in you the feeling of freedom to experiment or try something uncomfortable. But I’m sick of that cliché. Why use the word “perfect” in such a way that is untouchable? Language, after all, is made by humans for humans. You are a human being—you have to learn and try things. That is perfection in my book. Human beings are not static. Nor do we reach a kind of state of perfection like the Eastern mystics talk about. We live in a world of values that we have to choose every day. And I feel the same way about morality.

To be moral does not mean to be omniscient or all-knowing in order to be good. Another one of my pet peeves is when people say, “Morality isn’t black and white.” Well, Ayn Rand would tell you that it most certainly is. And here is how: It’s true that there can be some gray actions on a day-to-day basis. However, the culmination of those actions and the motivation behind each of them leads to being moral (good) or immoral (bad) as a whole person. An individual is made up of values, and those values can only be achieved and kept when they are identified and morally achieved. For example, if you want a greater sense of self-esteem, then you practice really hard to ace a test, truly learn the subject matter, and get that good grade. If you want to damage that sense of self-esteem, then you cheat on the test, not learn the material, but still get an A.

I have “made it.” I am happy. I have a wonderful, supportive husband. We hope to have our own children soon. I have a beautiful home to live in. I have fresh food and water to eat and drink. I am almost thirty and healthy in body and mind. Yes, I may want an updated wardrobe or neighbors that weren’t living so close to us, but that’s just “icing on the cake.” They are wants and not necessities. How did I get here? Was it hard? Was I ridiculed? Yes…but that is, unfortunately, what it takes today when you choose to be good.

I spent most of my time in school refusing sexual advances, avoiding physical fights, and not attending parties where I knew that drugs might be involved. Instead, I spent my waking moments attentively in the classroom, ferociously reading at home, and eventually finding school friends whom I could readily learn with and be around. Once I graduated, I found myself in my first normal nine-to-five job as a receptionist. And that is when my moral choices became more complex. After the first year or so, I began to get fidgety, then I started to resent my job. I felt like I woke up there and fell asleep there most days, especially on those cold, dark winter months… I learned the ins and outs of the job by that point and I needed to move on. I should have moved on earlier, but the “golden handcuffs” of the money were on. So, I began to search out innocuous things on the internet at work when no one needed my assistance. I started with taking typing tests and then searching for other types of work, all reasonable things, in my mind, to look up within the framework of my receptionist job. I was making myself better for the job at hand—continuous training, I told myself. But then I landed on the idea of transcript proofreading from home. From home…oh how I missed my haven of books and culture and not having a long commute shoved in a public bus with everyone else who worked in the city. I stayed sardine-shaped at work, my spine poking out through the skin to shield myself from the outside world.

Soon enough, I was sitting at my desk in another place entirely. I was no longer just the receptionist but a proofreader-in-training. Whenever my time was freed up, I was on their computer taking tests, learning about frequently confused homophones and transposed words. I printed off pages to work from since I didn’t have a printer at home. But the slope got more slippery in my head. I faked smiles and laughs and worked just enough to squeak by. And then I began to feel guilty. I was now having to make choices that left me either feeling used by the company or ashamed. These were some of my thoughts (see if you recognize some of these daily compromises you make in your job): Well, my boss didn’t tell me I’d have to stay this late, so I deserve the ten cents worth of paper. Or, this client on the phone was angry with me for no reason, so I should get an extra five minutes to eat my lunch today. Or, X always gets in late, so I’m going to arrive late just for today. And these kinds of calculations were constant. It was as if I was on this endless tightrope between making moral and immoral choices. Their policy was clear about not doing personal work during business hours, which probably included taking their paid-for paper and ink, taking extra time off, and arriving late. I knew what I was doing, but my own unhappiness made things seem even…fair.

I should have left earlier than I did, but I waited until I finished the proofreading program and started building up my business so that I no longer had to make tough and often poor moral decisions every day that I could feel were progressively eating away at my soul. I missed feeling the simplicity of just saying no to things in school and then following the schedule that was set by my parent and teachers. I no longer had that option. Life as an adult was my own, and I needed to spend my time wisely, make up my own schedule, and end up a lot happier than I was feeling in those days. As soon as I had a few clients under my belt, I resigned from my position.

Not everyone needs to quit their jobs and work for themselves. I’m sure there are plenty of people who love their jobs and are challenged enough on a daily basis to not start feeling resentful. But the moral degrees game, I believe, is very present in the “corporate world” today. Thankfully, when we do not cloud our emotions with drugs or alcohol, we have an easier time getting a clue about what we are doing—not only to the company we may work for but to ourselves. If you feel bad at the end of the day, then how have you spent it? Have you made compromises all day that only attacked your self-esteem and, thereby, your long-term happiness?

We are not static creatures. Every day we make moral choices, but we can make them easier or harder to choose. For instance, brushing your teeth comes automatically now since we’ve been doing it since childhood. Yet, it is an act of choosing life. You are taking care of your oral health to live another day healthy on earth. You have the option to skip it and risk cavities and all the deterioration of the body that follows, but that by definition is immoral since Ayn Rand states that “Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, then a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course” (Philosophy: Who Needs It?). A dead man doesn’t need morality.

So was I behaving poorly in my receptionist job? Toward the end, I would say yes, I did immoral things. However, it was the good, moral choice that made me resign and not continue to suck off the money teat forever while just giving the minimum of my efforts to my job. I regained the tarnished bits of my self-esteem by leaving and venturing off on my own. Do I make “easy” money now? No. Do I make as much money yet? No. But am I happier? Yes. Am I still perfect after learning from such an experience? Yes.

We all live atop the scales of justice until our final breath is taken. There are days we will make mistakes and there will be repercussions. But we must have the courage to address the emotions that come with an immoral decision in order to be good. Clouding, hiding, submerging those feelings and the reality of the situation, which, sadly, so many adults do who don’t understand the way out, can only lead to the destruction of the soul. Bad, immoral, imperfect people are those who know that what they do makes them feel awful, they may even know it is immoral, and continue to do it anyway—in the face of reality. They refuse to change when all evidence suggests they must do so to continue living. They begin to become walking billboards for death, not life. Forget brushing my teeth, forget clocking into work on time, forget keeping my child fed, forget that the gun is going off into an innocent person’s body because life has no meaning for me. I am the absence of life now; I am death. It is not an irrational spiral that stirs people on the outside to shout “Madman!” It is a man who has lost his sense of morality and progressively allows the disease to weaken his values down to dust.

I believe that most people are good, perfect beings who would benefit from more of a culture that advocates paying attention to our emotions—not hiding them. They can oftentimes help detect a bad decision before reason can come in to explain. Books, especially literary fiction, are also saviors for their honest look into people’s good and bad decisions and the outcomes they face from them. I believe that morality can be learned and a good, perfect person should be open to its serious study. They will learn that there are varying degrees of values on a person’s set of priorities, and the more attuned they are to them, the happier they will be with a clearer vision of their goals in life. Perfection is all about making mistakes and learning from them. That struggle to understand cause and effect is what makes man quintessentially human.

***

Links: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com; https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Who-Needs-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451138937

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

On Judgment

This month’s topic is on judgment and its use. Judgment, in particular, is required when growing up in a culture that constantly preaches not to judge while choosing to uphold the activities of the lowest common denominator, namely school dances.

I don’t know if every school has dances like the one I am going to discuss, whether public or private, but I would be curious to know, so feel free to share with me. This was certainly the climate when I was attending my public middle and high schools in New York and then in New Jersey. The first actual nightclub that I went to was in D.C. while in college, and it was clearly the inspiration for such school dances when I was growing up.

My first school dance was in the sixth grade when I would have been at the tender age of eleven. At eleven, I walked into a gym that was dark, loud, and downright frightening. I had never seen such a place before. The music was blaring, so much so that I covered my ears to protect them. Girls were behaving strangely around me and telling me that I was dressed up wrong. Guys were doused in horrible-smelling cologne and gel spiked all the hair they had on their body at that point. Teachers looked the other way while boys met girls up close and personally; I had never seen “grinding” before. The lights from the DJ disoriented me as I turned around looking for the familiar faces that I knew in the daylight, the faces I sat beside every day in the classroom. Where were they, or what, exactly, had they become in an instant?

***

Each year, I went to the next homecoming dance, believing that somehow a new grade meant more mature peers. Boy, was I wrong. It took me until I was seventeen years old and had worked my way up the high school food chain before I wrote this piece (even though I regrettably never sent it in). 

Our Nightclub Dances Must GO!

I have gotten into Peer Leadership and Teen PEP and these leadership roles have made me question how our school could better represent itself. My inspiration for change came from our Homecoming dance and several middle school dances beforehand. I believe that our dances are inappropriate and do not represent this school or any other school well. If you have ever been to a dance you would see kids ‘grinding’ in almost complete darkness while supposedly ‘dancing’ to extremely loud pop/rap music that no one can actually dance to. These dances begin in middle school and promote, to put it bluntly, sex. The music is also extremely loud as stated before, which can harm a student’s eardrums. I remember my eardrums buzzing for hours after I got home from dances. All I have to say is where has our culture gone? Our principals (and not just at LHS & LMS) seem to have ‘given up’ on enforcing school appropriate dances. I can understand that school officials feel that this is what most teenagers like and they’ll complain if you take away their freedom of expression but this should not be tolerated. I know many of my peers who would like their dances to be 80’s movie-esque. I know teachers who refuse to chaperone anymore because they feel uncomfortable allowing the kids to act in this way. If students learned how to dance then I believe that more of them would come and enjoy the dances. Learning how to dance is a great thing that our generation is missing out on. We are missing the whole point of what a dance is: a place to socialize and show off our moves not a place to sweat like pigs in the dark and dry hump to bad, booming noise. Excuse the vulgarity but I really do believe strongly in this. Kids are missing out on a great cultural past time.

I have never had fun at any of the dances I have been to which means that something just isn’t right. I’m not saying that students must stand a foot apart and sway to 50’s music, but I do think that we have toppled over to the other extreme. We are a SCHOOL, not a nightclub. I also realize that many teens like pop/rap, however, it seems one-sided and unfair to the students who like other kinds of music. The DJ’s should have a variety of music in order to expand students’ horizons and, as a result, teens can learn to respect other kinds of music. We could have jazz, R&B, swing, blues, classic rock, classical, anything! Just being exposed to different dances could also benefit the students because dancing is great exercise and so much fun. Learning dance steps from other countries could also become a culture experience (which International Alliance has already shown us). We could have break dancing, waltz, jitterbug, swing, and tango, whatever you can think of.

This is what dances everywhere have succumbed to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6t_rdl5zNg&feature=related  (This is a typical dance: crowded, blasting music, grinding, swaying like a dunce or jumping like one…I’m getting nauseous just watching this. Plus those are just 8th graders!!! What are we teaching them?! We are undoing all of the endless hours of abstinence messages just by allowing these types of dances to occur every month in LMS)!

Here is my vision. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-OG0EyJyV8&ab_channel=BoxofficeMovieScenes (Please notice the comments at the bottom. Just clean fun).

Now that’s a HUGE difference and it has only been 26 years since 1985! Clearly something is wrong and we have culturally demolished ourselves.

My plan, (if you and the school officials think it’s possible), would be to get a petition signed by a numerous amount of students to change our dance system, possibly after talking to the Board of Education, and create an experimental dance hosted by a school club/several clubs where high school students could come, dance, and then vote on whether or not they’d like to change our old dance habits. Then, if enough students enjoy it the school could change every dance to this new system. I know the question has popped into your head about how exactly we will teach around 300 high school students to dance…but this is what I am thinking. I would like to add dancing to our physical education program. So along with the required weight room and swimming units we should also have another in dancing. I still haven’t quite figured out if we could pay for a teacher, (I do know of a great ballroom dancing couple who work very close to LHS), or we could just buy dance videos to play on the TV in the aerobics room. After learning a few new moves hopefully the enthusiasm for real dancing will return and we can all live happily ever after… Thank you for listening and please get back to me about whether or not this is even possible.

***

I was eighteen when I wrote this next piece for one of my first college literature classes.

The Atheist’s Sermon

How silly you look. How young. You’re not a real college student. Simultaneously attempting to calm my nerves and get ready for the party, I slip into my elegant dress and shoes. This was the only “clubbing” attire that I owned. Trying to escape the nerves wrapping themselves around my brain like thin vines, I stealthily step out of my room and into the residence hallways. My heart is starting to palpitate hard against my chest as I scurry down the hallway and out into the starless night to join a group of four other girls who were all wearing “little black dresses.” Staring down at my own purple bubble dress, I withdrew from an instant realization that I was already screwing up that night.

Doubly self-conscious, I step onto the shuttle bus full of half-naked students. Egotistical boys are talking in the back, while the leader of the pack makes his presence known for all capable of hearing by saying that he is “semi-hard right now.” I feel my face burn and I force myself to breathe again. I cannot help feeling naked, dirty, and mysterious all at once. I am trapped in a completely packed shuttle with these other crazy party-goers. And in the midst of such chaos, a girl is putting on ten pounds of cherry red lipstick on her already obnoxiously bleeding-red lips. While girls with the flat-ironed bleach blonde hair, the extra padded push-up bras, the arrogant walk – you know, the hip-swinging, back straightened, nose-to-the-sky type of walk are strutting around the bus stop waiting for their dates. This shuttle of hormones begins to move after five eternally long minutes. I sit and try to make small-talk with the people accompanying me, but I can’t help getting distracted by the darkness outside that is enclosing the bus. It is around 10 PM now, so the night is still relatively young. We exit the shuttle and before I know it, I am on the metro headed toward Metro Center, our destination for the evening. The metro lights are unnaturally bright for this time of day. They sting my retinas. I look away and catch a glimpse of my right wrist clenched onto a cold, metallic rod for support. My wrist looks so small that I almost do not recognize it. It appears vulnerable, pale, innocent, thin, delicate, and fragile – breakable. And I swear it was getting smaller as the night dragged on.

The chill weather gives me goose-bumps as I walk down the road immersed in warm, illuminating street-lights. I can sense the buzz humming in the silent air, this is the nightlife. People line up on the escalator, one after another, all headed somewhere. Some faces were disapproving and it made me feel like an outright scoundrel. Other faces were absorbed in their own thoughts – hollow, and unchanging. Still some were happy as clams, laughing like fools, already having a good time. I am none of these people. I am a nervous wreck. Having been to several parties previously, I usually ended up awkwardly dancing with my friends out of a sense of obligation and then I would proceed to sit out for the rest of the night. The whole “club culture” which has always been a major attraction for students has constantly felt like the antithesis of my very being, but I could never effectively explain why to people. Homecomings, formals, and prom always ended the same way for me – lonely. I went out that night to understand myself. What was I psychologically struggling with every time I went to a party?  Was it just me or was it something else more powerful than myself coercing me not to enjoy it? Am I in the wrong or are others? 

It is an hour long line. Even with our “Ladies Night Passes,” we still have to wait with everyone else in the bitterly cool night air. A whirl of smoke and perfume fill my lungs as I wait there in line choking on its consistency. Greasy-looking men smoke at least three cigarettes during that long wait, while slutty-looking women complain about the line. Meanwhile, the heels and skin tight clothes on every body type imaginable were being unwillingly downloaded into my subconscious mind. Those images sear my eyes, while the electrical neurons shoot up into my memory center, and my innocence is quickly vaporized from existence. French speaking people behind me in line speak of how they pity me and how “saintly” I look among my friends. Is it really that obvious? Finally, I make it up to the door: boorish guards check my bag and driver’s license, take my umbrella away, seize my money and pass, grab my miniscule wrists and mark and stamp them to death. I want to run away but I keep walking forward, determined to discover once and for all why I feel this way. I enter the club and it is all fog and strobe lights. One puff of smoke after the next, an unrelenting chain of stupor enshrouds the club. It is loud and cramped, I cannot breathe. My group and I push through the crowd so that one of my friends who have been here before can show us each floor. I shove my body through the crowd, men flinging themselves at me. I push more forcefully now, the adrenaline rushing through my entire body. A room full of Ids. A room full of escapists. A room full of imperfection.

It is around 11 PM and we spend the first twenty minutes running up and down narrow staircases. Constantly passing by a bright blue and green light box which was the only beacon of stability I had to cling to amidst unstable waters, because it soon became a familiar sight. Bodies are shoving their way upstairs or downstairs in such commotion. It is as if people had suddenly become mindless ants crawling to and fro on their tiny hill without rhyme or reason. And the staircases are black so it is almost impossible to see where you are going, except for the various colored lights escaping from the floor below. It is like some kind of twisted nightmare that I have had before. The first floor is the main floor which has mostly pop music, the next floor is rap, and the final floor (at least from what I can remember) is Hispanic music. We visit all three and decide to stay awhile on the third floor. So standing in a circle we sway back and forth to the music, no one looking happy or having fun. One of the girls I do not know is “grinding” with a random man who looks to be about twenty-five years old. We all stare. It is not dancing, it is dry humping. Excuse me for being so blunt, but this is what I saw. And in order to understand oneself, the truth must be told. After that I was through, finished, done. Yet again, I experience the party for five minutes and then give up on hoping that I will have a good time. I have hoped one too many times. It’s useless. I hate it.

 Looking back now my family was never very religious, but I was brought up a Protestant anyway. When I first realized that I could think for myself, I never thought much about god. But that all changed when my mother died. I can still remember a kid in my class saying, “maybe you didn’t pray hard enough for her.” From that point on, I hated any notion of a god. Having never really believed in him in the first place, it was easy to reject him entirely. But for this reason I am not Agnostic, because I resent people believing in some creature who could kill my own mother so viciously. No just god could do something as evil as that and get away with it. So having kicked god to the curb, I looked to people and nature. My expectations for myself and others rose to unnatural heights. My definition of perfect was no longer connected to some omnipotent presence, but to other human beings. It is not difficult to be perfect in my book. One must simply maintain moral goodness and care for oneself. I do not see people as walking shards of soul, as many others do. I see people as whole, good, and always striving to be better. That is perfection.

It is about 1 AM when I begin amusing myself by watching how drunken people are based on how poorly they walked up the stairs. It began with people joyously dancing up the stairs, then people began spilling their drinks halfway up, then men and women began zigzagging up the stairs, some people tripped, and angry women yelled at the security guards. These were signs of the night growing older, and yet the music continued to get louder, as if to shout in rebellion against time aging. And as the music was increasing in volume, each note was nailing a sign into my skull which said, NEVER AGAIN. Finally, at 2:45 AM, my friends were finished partying and I could leave this foreign place. The stark, early morning air slapped me hard in the face. One of the girls said she felt nauseous and had to sit down, another girl did not look like she had any fun at all, the one who invited me claimed that she had fun, and the “grinding” girl I had only seen for five minutes before she ditched us was staring up hazy-eyed into the pitch-black sky. Apparently, an older guy brought her a couple of shots to take and she had willingly accepted. While keeping an eye on her, we flagged down a taxi which drove us back to campus (we managed to shove five bodies into one cab). And of course, I had to pay the taxi driver. What a waste of twenty dollars. By 4 AM, I quickly run to the bathroom, throw off my elegant dress and shoes, and yank on my pajamas. Then, I proceed to scrub the marker and stamp off my hands and wrists until they are bright red. I wish I could forget this night in its entirety. I crawl underneath my thin fleece covers and allow the night to settle in my brain and produce the answer to my problem. The images that bore a hole in my memory kept playing in my head over-and-over again, until I reached some pretty hefty conclusions about myself and others. 

I am not in the wrong. My body and soul are simply intertwined – inseparable components of my being. My mother’s death allowed me to see that the two must be connected in order for me to find happiness. And the only way that I can combine the two dual entities is to find other people with the same high moral expectations. My own morality shines through because, as Socrates says in Plato’s Socrates and Alcibiades, “either […] man is nothing, or, if man is something, he turns out to be nothing other than soul” (48).  I am soul. I am soul, because I have decided to devote myself to people. So by using my body, I can carry out my soul’s will. Without a god to lead me through life, I must rely on my own intuition. For I am limited to people – all I know are other people. Socrates also says in Plato’s Five Dialogues, “that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness” (78). Hence, my very being is made up of other people. And if the soul is reused like water, then I have a well-versed soul telling me that clubbing is wrong.

People often tell me that I place too much moral weight on things like alcohol, drugs, and parties. But if I give way to these evils, then what does that say about my soul? I prefer to be hyper-sensitive and in control of my senses at all times, because that way I can take pleasure in the simple joys of life. I can combine soul and body to achieve happiness. I do not wish to escape from reality. I wish to relish in it, because being an Atheist I believe that this life is the only one I have. Therefore, I can only respect and have fun with the people who can earn my respect. People must work for my love and I must work for theirs. I shall never compromise my body and soul for others, because I have taken on perfection. I am perfect. Call me a saint, an innocent little girl, an old soul, but I will not be peer-pressured into corrupting myself in any way. I love humanity, and that night I was personally hurt and disappointed that people could behave so irrationally for fun. Escapism is not what I look for in other human beings, but courage…to have the courage to act, to live, to enjoy insignificant moments, to taste life twice.  I want to be able to look up to mankind, not despise it, because that is all that I have to live for – myself and other people.

***

After reading this essay, my freshman college professor told me I was “being way too judgmental of these people who were just trying to have fun.” She looked at me with hatred in her eyes. You see, the point of this introductory assignment (and many of the subsequent ones) at this liberal university was to “go outside of our comfort zones and learn something new about ourselves and others.” The main example pressed upon us was to pretend to be homeless for a day and then write about that. What this translated to was to be humble, you privileged child, and place the lowest in society above yourself—it was meant to be the ultimate act of altruism in order to enter the pearly gates of this university.

I was having none of it. After all, I was one of those students who had already struggled enough in life and chose not to go down the path of drugs, prostitution, crime, and homelessness. I didn’t work this hard just to end up there, anyway. I was using my senses and honestly felt sick going to what this culture was telling me was a place to have the time of my life. It wasn’t life; it was death.

I was meant to put my head down and serve death—in my college career and my future job until I was skin and bones myself. I was meant to shrivel up and die like Christ on the cross for others. I was worthless without the other. That’s what school was trying to teach me now, not reading, writing, or arithmetic.

In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand discusses “judgment” as something that we all must do to “evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard.” And that “[n]othing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.” Therefore, I judge so as to understand myself and the world clearly. And this sensitivity to the world makes it more sustainably pleasurable than being in a dark room that is too loud to even think in—not from a religious perspective but from a human, moral one.

The only ingredient missing in those gyms (although I’m sure the “bad kids” already had it) was alcohol and drugs. Those ingredients magically make that dark room “fun” for adults. The darkness and noise and hazy fog blinding the senses—the complete abandonment of reality—is fun? If that is truly fun, then that means something is not right in that person’s personal life. They are deliberately trying to escape reality. As I said before, it is an unsustainable and ugly way to live. As an adult now who cannot be bullied, I will not ignore how I always felt about these types of dances and how they reflect our culture at large. For any time you abandon reality, the risks to you of losing control for good increase. I choose life over death every single day and so should you, so judge on, my friends.

***

Links: https://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Alcibiades-Symposium-212c-223a-Philosophical/dp/1585100692; https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Dialogues-Euthyphro-Apology-Phaedo/dp/0915145227/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

The Seven Virtues

I am going to be reading several excerpts from Tara Smith’s book, Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, along with providing some of my own commentary and an example. This book has served as an enormous help to me in grappling with Ayn Rand’s views on forming a proper secular morality.

I’m excited to share this information with you, so let’s dive in.

In Professor Smith’s introduction to the book, she describes her subject as “[…] how to lead a selfish life” (4). To be self-interested is linked to the concept of egoism, which means that our “[…] standard of value is life” (6). “Our nature dictates that we need morality […]” (2) in order “[…] to guide individuals to the achievement of their happiness” (48). “It is only by leading a morally upright life that a person can be happy and it is for the sake of having a happy life that a person should be morally upright” (3). Since our aim in life is to be happy, then “[…] a determination of the proper way to lead our lives must begin with an analysis of the concept of value” (4).

Her next chapter on rational egoism further describes what Ayn Rand truly means by being egoistic (since it usually gets a bad name in this culture). To be egoistic, you must use your mind and take rational actions to achieve the values you set for yourself. According to Rand, “[a] value is ‘that which one acts to gain and/or keep’” (20). Therefore, “[m]orality, Rand writes, ‘is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions […]’” (19). And “[…] value is objective” (25) because “[t]he basis for regarding certain ends as objectively valuable to an organism, as the kinds of things that it should seek, Rand reasons, rests in the struggle for life.” (20) For example, if you want to live to an old age (life), then you choose not to do illegal drugs (death). “Ethical egoism is the thesis that a person should act to promote his own interest” (23). Unlike Satanists, this does not include hedonism, which Christians, in particular, always like to bring up. For “[p]leasure is not a reliable guide to the advancement of a human being’s life, as what is pleasurable and what is in a person’s interest do not always coincide” (27) because “[f]lourishing is the path to continued living” (31). You can often end up in quite the opposite conundrum when you simply act on emotions, which is why Rand “[…] defines happiness as ‘that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values.’ It is a ‘state of non-contradictory joy…a joy that does not clash with any of your values’” (31). “Rational egoism is not about besting others, but about making one’s own life as rewarding as possible” (38). It is a focus on your own happiness, which can be degraded by bad actions over time. Although “[…] a person can survive an occasional immoral action. But damage is damage, as Peikoff elaborates, and ‘damage, untended is progressive.’ It cannot be courted or passively tolerated if one’s goal is to flourish” (38). This is why Rand believed that you can have gray actions, but at the end of the day, you cannot have gray morality. Your moral actions accumulate on a daily basis to form a person who is either good or bad, not both. And “[t]he actions necessary to sustain a person’s life in atypical conditions cannot be used as the basis for moral principles that are to guide us in everyday living […]” (43). In other words, you must have a choice to act morally in order for there to be morality. You cannot serve up, as so many modern philosophers do, trolley problems to form a code of morality.

The book then begins to take on each of the seven chosen virtues that Ayn Rand discussed over her lifetime (though this list may not be exhaustive). The first and most important of those virtues is rationality, which is “[…] the acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge and fundamental guide to action” (7). For example: “I cannot ascend to the fourth floor of Waggener Hall by levitating. I can reach the fourth floor by climbing the stairs or taking the elevator, as long as those were built in ways that respect relevant materials, the weight of human beings, and the like” (58). “‘It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours…’” (52–3) because “[r]eason is man’s fundamental means of survival.” (57) And it is his virtues that “[…] designate the fundamental kinds of action that are necessary to sustain human life” (52).

The second virtue is honesty, which is “[…] the refusal to fake reality” (8). For example: “If a physician ignores the CT scan results, he cannot prescribe effective treatment for his patient; if an electrician ignores faulty wiring, he cannot prepare a safe building for its occupants; if a man ignores signs of his own emotional deterioration, he cannot achieve happiness” (79). Therefore, “[h]onesty, in Rand’s view, means that a person ‘must never attempt to fake reality in any manner’” (75). “Whenever a person is dishonest with others, one prominent consequence is the need to conceal his deception” (81). And “[…] the deeper problem with deception of others is that invented ‘goods’—as invented ‘facts’—cannot actually advance a person’s life” (81). “It would make no sense to pursue a near term ‘gain’ by methods that sabotage one’s longer-term welfare (e.g., earning a profit this year by employing means that will bankrupt the business soon thereafter […]” (82). “Through dishonesty, a person makes himself dependent on others—on their standards and their ignorance” (83). It is “[…] comparable to that of a person on a boat that is springing leaks, frantically patching one after another” (85). Therefore, “[…] I would suggest that dishonesty is likely to eat away at a person’s self-esteem […]” (85). They must create lie after lie in order to keep up the ruse. However, “[a] person stands under no moral obligation to divulge his knowledge to an inquiring Nazi. In such cases, the person who lies is not attempting to gain a value. […] Rather, he is acting rationally to protect a value under attack” (94). “All moral guidance is intended for the normal course of events, since those are the conditions we ordinarily face and that allow us to identify principles that provide effective guidance” (94–5). “‘In such a case, morality cannot say what to do. Under a dictatorship—under force—there is no such thing as morality. Morality ends where a gun begins…in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That is my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code’” (95) since “[m]orality is a tool of self-preservation” (96). “In a natural emergency, a great value is at risk; in a metaphysical emergency, a person’s very mode of survival is immobilized” (98). So, morality can still exist (just differently) in certain types of emergencies. For instance, “[i]n a natural emergency, a woman might be morally justified in taking a neighbor’s car to rush her husband to the hospital or in breaking into a neighbor’s vacant house to use his phone to call an ambulance if her own is not working. Ordinarily, rational egoism would forbid such violations of others’ property, but the emergency justifies it. This does not mean that morality is silenced all together and totally inapplicable, however. The person who violates the basic principles of morality is still obligated to recognize that his emergency (genuine as it is, for him) is not an emergency for everyone and does not suspend all other individuals’ rights. Accordingly, he must be ready to pay compensation to those whose property he has taken” (98). This is why “[h]onesty is not intrinsically virtuous or a categorical imperative, to be blindly obeyed regardless of circumstances” (99–100). Even “white lies” can be considered on the same level as total dishonesty. “The essential problem with well-intentioned dishonesty is the same as that with any dishonesty: It does not work. As Peikoff observes, a lie that attempts to protect others from certain facts is as impractical as any more blatantly sinister lies” (102). “It infuses artificiality into individuals’ relationships” (103). “Essentially, Rand holds, a person should either tell the truth about an issue or refuse to discuss it” (103). “In fact, as Rand observes, telling a man the truth is a form of respect” (104).

The third virtue is independence, which is“[…] setting one’s primary orientation to reality rather than to other people” (9). For example: “While the independent person will choose his career by reference to the relevant facts of reality (e.g., his enjoyment of the work, his aptitude for it, his judgment of its value, employment prospects), the second-hander will choose his career by reference to what other people think of it (e.g., becoming a physician ‘because everybody is impressed by doctors,’ joining the family business because all of his siblings have, going into a ‘helping’ profession because society considers it noble)” (111). “Independence, according to Rand, is ‘one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind’” (107). “It is not ‘whatever I want’ that is most important for a rational egoist, but whatever, in fact, will objectively serve his flourishing” (124). “Rand rejects the image of man as either a ‘lone wolf’ or a ‘social animal,’ asserting that he is, in fact, a ‘contractual animal’” (130).

The fourth virtue is justice, which is“[…] judging other persons objectively and treating them accordingly by giving them what they deserve […]” (10). For example: “This is reflected when we think that an especially attentive waiter deserves a big tip, a hard-working staffer deserves special commendation, the corrupt politician deserves defeat, or a rapist deserves a lengthy prison sentence” (138). “Justice is the application of rationality to the evaluation and treatment of other individuals” (135). [As a side note, “[…] retribution refers to ‘the imposition of painful consequences proportionate to the injury caused by the criminal act’” (138).] “Justice is essential for the prudent promotion and protection of one’s values” (148). “Implicit in judging others objectively is judging individuals as individuals. Justice forbids sweeping generalizations, blanket condemnations, or benedictions on the basis of nonessential similarities among people” (152). “‘Since men are born tabula rasa, both cognitively and morally,’ Rand reasons, ‘a rational man regards strangers as innocent until proved guilty’” (154). So, men are not born “morally perfect,” but every decision to survive and flourish from birth is perfect. “Morality does not demand cooperation with those who would turn a person’s virtue against him, making it a tool in his own victimization. As Peikoff observes, ‘Justice cannot require that a man sacrifice himself to someone else’s evil.’ In normal circumstances, however, where a person’s silence would reasonably be taken as agreement with something he does not support and he would not be unjustly penalized for speaking out, he must speak” (162). In terms of forgiveness for an injustice, it may be “[…] proper, Peikoff observes, when the offender makes restitution to his victim (if possible) and demonstrates that he understands the roots of his breach, has reformed, and will not repeat the transgression” (166). “Forgiveness, then, must be earned […]” (166). And where it is concerned, “[e]ssentially, as Peikoff recognizes, mercy is ‘the policy of identifying [a person’s deserts], then not acting accordingly […]’” (168). Therefore, mercy is not considered to be a virtue.

The fifth virtue is integrity, which is“[…] loyalty in action to rational principles” (11). For example: “He does not speak at a meeting on behalf of a policy he deems important, for instance, because he thinks he will seem foolish. He fears rejection from the voters, so he tells them what he thinks they want to hear rather than his true convictions. He fears criticism from students, so he lowers his standards to offer them more palatable grades” (179). “Rand describes integrity as ‘loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality’” (176). It is complete “‘[…] loyalty to rational principles’” (176). Whereas, “[i]n the end, a lack of integrity amounts to a lack of principles” (181). These “[…] moral principles should never be reified as inherently obligatory. Integrity does require, however, the refusal to compromise one’s principles” (188). “While people often think of violations of their principles as cheating ‘just a little,’ any cheating inevitably means abandoning those principles completely, since the cheater is enthroning something other than those principles as sovereign” (190). If any cheating occurs, then it must be dealt with “[i]n a word: justly. He should acknowledge his lapse, objectively evaluate it, and dedicate himself to avoiding its recurrence” (196). For “[…] evil cannot generate objective values. The good, in contrast, has nothing to gain in any compromise, precisely because evil (to the extent that it is evil) does not generate objective values” (191). Good gains only from good. And the courage to correct an error in virtue, “[…] then, is being ‘true to existence’ […]” (195). With this virtue, I have a personal essay I wrote back in college about how I stole peanuts when I was five years old and thereafter learned the virtue of integrity from my parents.

***

The Five-Year-Old Robber

            As I walked through the aisles, humming to myself, my hands running down each pre-packed produce item, I noticed an open container full of peanuts. The container was at eye-level and my eyes clung to it and nothing else. Sharply tugging on my mother’s pants, I asked politely if I could have some. She said, “Not now, Katie.” But my mind was already made up and being the stubborn child that I was, I felt the urge to grab some of the peanuts and shove them into my pocket. No one would ever know. I felt a rush of triumph blow over me. I had taken flight with new wings my parents had no control over. If I wanted something, I took it.

            Walking behind my mother, the act replayed in my head over and over again – my small hand reaching out, my heart palpitating ten times its normal rate, my eyes shifting back-and-forth, my armpits starting to sweat. And then the grab itself. Cupping my hand, I became the plastic scooper and kidnapped what few peanuts I could. I captured about five unnoticed. I remember the way that their shells felt against the palm of my hand. Each peanut took on its own shape, the rough curvature making every one unique. I almost felt like naming each separate peanut before devouring them whole. But I had to release the light, ridged shells into my soft, sweater-pocket. The pocket itself was so tiny that it could hardly hold down five large peanuts. But I shoved them down its throat with deft accuracy and speed. That way the pocket would not protest and I could go home a free girl – free from trouble.

            A grin began to appear on my face, but as I looked up at my mother, I felt an intense drop in my mood. Would she approve of my achievement to outsmart her…or even worse, would father? I gulped. Looking around the current aisle we were being swallowed up in, I noticed it smelled like bleach and large tubs of colorfully labeled goo were sitting on the shelves. We were in the cleaning supplies aisle which seemed like forever away from the peanut container I had just violated. It was too late – the damage was done.

           Suddenly, my mother asked me: “Katie is there anything else you’d like since we finished with the grocery list?” This was my chance to confess. It was a miracle. But appearing on my left shoulder the devil whispered into my ear, “Are you nuts, kid? You can’t give up now; you’re bound to get in trouble if you tell her here.” While an angel on my right shoulder yanked on my ear and said, “No! You must confess now, because it will only be worse later.” Later? I was not planning on getting caught at all. The thought had never occurred to me that I would be caught later. But being too nervous and stubborn with my decision, I hesitantly replied, “Nope.” Something in my gut kicked me…or perhaps it was my brain. Either way, we got through the check-out line with ease, my peanuts still being safely hidden away in my sweater-pocket’s mouth.

            When we arrived home, I was both excited and nervous to dispose of the peanuts – down my throat. I only had them once before at my godmother’s house last summer, and finally I would get to experience their taste once more. Unnoticed, I crept to my room and unloaded the goods onto my bed. One by one, I proceeded to crack their shells to pieces and gobble up their insides. (Good thing I did not name them). The savory blend of spit and salt mixed in my mouth. I could not think of anything else in that moment of ecstasy. And so, I left my room in a beautiful haze of briny, peanut-y goodness. I went to look outside one of our windows in the kitchen while I enjoyed the last remnants of peanut in my mouth. It was like tasting the sun going down.

            My brain had stopped kicking me for a while until my mother yelled my name – my full name: “Kaitlyn Marie Quis!!!” Uh-oh.

            “Yes, mama?”

            “Come here.” I trudged into my room. I had been caught somehow.

            “Why are there peanut shells all over your bed?!” How could I have forgotten?! 

            “I took them from the store when you told me I couldn’t have any…”

            “I’m telling your father. Stealing is not okay!” Oh no, my father will spank me for sure.

            My face started scrunching up. Was I really going to cry now when just a few moments ago I had been so happy? Mother walked me over to the living room where father was sitting in “his chair” and began listening to her story. His eyes grew large and frightened as he aimed them at me. Now my head and stomach and heart were all sounding the alarm. My butt was going to be sore tonight. But as I looked back at my dad he could tell that I had no real notion of what “stealing” was – I had only heard the word used a few times in church after-all. I promised them that I would never do it again. I was not a “robber.” My mother and father gave each other one final look and the decision was made in silence. No punishment. Thank goodness! I thought, as a wave of relief came over me. 

            I had yet to realize though that although I was not physically punished, I was mentally. This thing that is called, “guilt” had been sneaking up on me the whole time. I also had this thing called, “conscience” which was what was doing all the kicking, I suppose. My parents talked to me for a while about why stealing was wrong and I began to understand what I had robbed that grocery store of – money. I also learned what I had robbed from myself – dignity. My mental punishment may actually have been more severe than a physical one, because I had only myself to blame and I thought my parents looked down on me that day. Thankfully, I learned my lesson and never stole anything again. That day, I had tasted the sunset – and it tasted like dirt.

***

The sixth virtue is productiveness, which is“[…] the process of creating material values” (12). For example: “A person can be productive by building a boat or a bridge, for instance, by repairing shoes or writing software, by composing music or researching biology, performing surgery, mowing lawns, selling insurance, shipping, catering, proofreading, or reporting the news” (199). “Productiveness is ‘the process of creating material values, whether goods or services’” (198). “‘The two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work’” (201). And “[t]he sole reason to be productive is to advance one’s own happiness” (205). [As another side note, “Consonant with the recognition that a person’s paying job will not always involve his most productive work, Rand believes that raising children could be productive work […as] a full-time job” (209).] “On Rand’s theory, the point of living is the enjoyment of one’s life, and the standard of value is human life. Correlatively, anything that enhances a human life is to be encouraged” (212). “In holding this, Rand is not endorsing the excesses of a neurotic workaholic. Excesses are precisely that. A person should exercise productiveness in a manner that is compatible with the rational pursuit of all the values that will achieve his happiness” (213). According to Rand, the definition of happiness is “[…] ‘that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values’ […] ‘happiness is an emotional response to something […]’” (216). We “[…] need to grow” (214) as human beings and “[f]ailing to embrace a central productive purpose chokes the primary artery of happiness” (216). “We need material values in order to sustain our lives. The more money a person has, the more easily he can obtain those values. And the more easily he can do that, the more he can tailor his days to his liking, which in itself has life-advancing value” (219).

The seventh and final virtue is pride, which is“[…] a forward-driving commitment to achieve one’s moral perfection” (13).For example: “We do not dispute a test score as perfect simply because the test was not more difficult (being pitched to 4th graders, for instance, rather than 12th graders)” (239). “Rand understands pride as moral ambitiousness, an energetic dedication to being one’s best” (13). “‘As a rule, a man of achievement does not flaunt his achievements,’ Rand observes, and ‘he does not evaluate himself by others—by a comparative standard. His attitude is not ‘I am better than you’ but ‘I am good’” (224). Therefore, “[…] the virtue of pride (as opposed to the feeling of pride) consists in a commitment to rational action” […] “the genuine feeling of pride can only be sustained through the practical exercise of that commitment” (224). It is “[…] pride with moral ambitiousness […]” (225). “The fact that man is a being of self-made soul creates the need to make one’s soul well” (227). And since “[l]ife is action; its sustenance depends on life-advancing action” (236). In this way, “[…] a person is morally perfect when he lives up to moral principles as well as he can” (237). “The key to appreciating how perfection is possible is context. That is, as with all the virtues, we must understand the requirements of perfection realistically” (238). “‘Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience’” (239). “It is crucial to appreciate that a normative standard that is beyond our reach is not a genuine standard. For it fails to serve the function of a moral standard, which is to provide practicable instruction. Human beings need moral guidance designed for us, as our nature and circumstances allow us to be” (240–1). [As a final side note, “Benjamin Franklin intended to write a book showing that anyone who tried could achieve moral perfection” (240). “Franklin himself deliberately set out to achieve perfection […]” (240).]

Again, this list of seven virtues is not exhaustive. However, it is difficult to think of another virtue that needs to be included or is not already covered by these major ones. In the final chapters of the book, Professor Smith discusses other conventional virtues that Ayn Rand believes are neither virtues nor vices or are not virtues at all. In terms of charity, Rand says, “‘My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them’” (252). But “[…] charity is not a virtue” (253). Emergencies can be moral as long as there is no coercion. Take, for instance, “‘[…] the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it […] If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable’” (254). In most cases, “‘[…] one can help only those who don’t actually need it’” (255). In terms of generosity, “[…] Rand characterizes generosity in a letter: as a ‘gift or favor greater than the friend involved could, in reason, expect’” (257). So, according to “[…] Rand’s theory, generosity is neither a virtue nor a vice” (260). In terms of kindness, it is “[…] a means of tending the values one finds in specific other people. Nonetheless, kindness is not a virtue for the simple reason that kindness is not always appropriate” (270). In terms of temperance, “[…] rational self-restraint is an important tool in the pursuit of a person’s objective well-being” (282). But “[…] temperance per se (understood simply as self-restraint and taken to refer to either self-denial or moderation) is not a virtue” (282). [As a quick aside, in terms of friendship and love, “[…] love—in its ideal, rational form—is a value that advances the lover’s life” (292). “‘The Objectivist does not say ‘I value only myself.’ He says: ‘If you are a certain kind of person, you become thereby a value to me, in the furtherance of my own life and happiness’” (301).]

Lastly and most importantly, “Rand’s ethics is animated by the recognition that human life can be sustained only by specific types of actions. This unshakeable fact gives rise to the need for a moral code to guide individuals’ actions” (284) because “[…] values are the content of life. It is these that a person seeks when he seeks his happiness. Happiness is not a goal that is independent of values […]” (303). Therefore, “[…] what the egoist seeks is a world of values” (303).

***

Link: https://www. amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Normative-Ethics-Virtuous/dp/0521705460

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.