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.

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.

The Atheist Nun

So why share all of these etiquette videos? Well, this was my way of tiptoeing into the moral arena while gaining enough courage to discuss my personal beliefs more directly online. Do I think I’m ready now? No, but I’m going to put it out there anyway since morality has been at the core of my being from childhood and only grows stronger with time. This is why the topic can be so touchy for me and anyone else who holds their morals close to their chest.  

I am also tired of the thirty-second bits that people shout out to add their voice to the ever-growing chatter of “the news.” People come away with extremely shallow and tribalistic views if they cannot fully hear either position expressed. Therefore, the art of etiquette and the rules of civility that I posted were meant to stand as a welcome reminder to adults coming to my channel that one must first listen before they are heard.  

That is why I appreciate having a channel where I can sit in a quiet room, write out my thoughts, and then deliver them without fear of being shouted over. I believe this is also why you don’t hear many women speaking out in the “public sphere” for fear of such shouting matches. Even though, historically, women have been seen as the moral guides within the home, and I wish to continue that tradition. I, personally, am too delicate to be mowed over by the loudest voices in the room. I would never be heard that way in this current culture.  

And why, you may ask, for the changed name of my channel? That is all thanks to my brother, who always tells me the truth, even when it may not be flattering (heck, more so if it’s unflattering) to me. But I guess that’s just what siblings do. 

Anyway, not too long ago, my brother texted me and called me an “atheist nun” in jest because I have always taken life so seriously and the smallest things seem to upset me. I was often told growing up that I “can’t take a joke.” But it’s because of this view of the world—the details, the small transgressions—that Man makes in his day-to-day life that I can see eating away at his own happiness that bothers me. I love people but hate when they sabotage themselves. And sabotage is much easier to do when you’re begging forgiveness from a father figure that’s watching your every move. I truly believe that if you focus on yourself and the way you interact with the world, you’ll eventually find happiness. 

I heard Ben Shapiro talking a few months ago about how materialistic and small worshipping nature is—that God produces a much mightier and holier conception of the world for Man. But as I’ve spoken about in previous episodes, a writer gets his words and ideas from the details (also known as inductive reasoning) to come to grand conclusions. It’s the nature that’s around us—reality—that makes my flesh tingle, not some big man in the sky.  

I suppose I’m still figuring out how I can truly help people through this platform. In some ways, I’d really like to help people see morality as something that can be discussed more scientifically than returning to preaching scenes from the Bible. I want to find those people out there who also like homesteading and ballet and learning new things and enjoying family without the sermons at the end. 

I am sure that it will take more episodes to fully understand the seeming paradox of a name like “The Atheist Nun,” but for now I have opened up the conversation, I hope. And in the most fleshed-out way, I am a person without faith who finds a kind of spirituality in humanity and the morals that keep us on the true path to happiness.  

And finally, please leave your comments and thoughts. I don’t mean to appear intense or intimidating; apparently, I just come off this way because of my drive to see myself and others do well. Additionally, here’s an important disclaimer: I will be very careful not to try to tease out other living people’s thoughts on this channel, other than my own, when discussing morality in order to avoid what Ayn Rand calls “psychologizing.” This term is essentially used to mean judging others for merely their thoughts or subconscious motives. It is unfair for me to try to weasel into another’s mind and presume to know why they feel what they feel or why they do what they do—only they know that. I can only look at the actions that they took or the words consciously communicated either orally or written down, and only then can a moral judgment be made. 

At the end of the day, I know we can do better as a society if we let go of the notion that we are not responsible for our own destinies, or that some deity or deities control every aspect of our lives, or that life is completely up to chance. We have free will, and the greatest teachers are shut up in books building up dust. I want people to blow off those cobwebs, crack open the best minds, and peer into their honest, naked thoughts. Take the time to digest them and integrate admirable minds into your own to become the kind of person that is never forgotten by time. 

_____________________________________________________________

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.

Excerpts from A Word to Women by Mrs. Humphry, 1898

I am learning to embrace my unique lifestyle by reading more about the Victorian era, a period in which I find most of my favorite art and some of the most amazing inventions. Perhaps our historic, Queen Anne-styled home has rubbed off on me too, as I am surrounded by its beauty every day. Hopefully, learning what a middle-class Victorian woman did in the home will help guide me on my own journey through life.

I will be sharing several interesting excerpts from the books that I have been reading as of late. This one is an etiquette book for ladies written by Mrs. Humphry, a late Victorian novelist, in 1898 entitled A Word to Women. I will also put the link to the full text at the end of the excerpts if you want to read the complete work.

Let’s begin.

His wife is an education to him…

***

The ideal girl is she who combines with high culture a love of the domestic and a desire to please.

***

It is good to encourage the love of simple pleasures. It is the way to keep our souls from shrinking.

***

To possess a grateful spirit is to increase the happiness of life.

***

It is good to teach young people to appreciate the infinite, everyday pleasures that surround them. It adds immensely to their happiness…

***

To grow old is tragic, especially for women.

***

And as one of Nature’s decrees is that which causes us to adjust ourselves to altered surroundings after change or loss, we accept the altered circumstances, and allow our thoughts and feelings to grow round what is left to us.

***

We were surely meant to be happy, we humans, so indomitable is the inclination towards joyfulness under circumstances the most adverse. It is easy enough in youth, and even the sceptic, the pessimist, the cynic, if they live long enough, will find that it is not so very difficult in middle age, when scepticism, pessimism, and cynicism are apt to be outgrown. There lies the true secret of the matter. There is a joy in growth, and we must see to it that we do not cheat ourselves of it. Stunted natures are seldom happy ones, and their middle age is merely mental shrinkage, with a narrowing of the heart and a corresponding drought in all the sources of joy.

***

Sometimes two who have loved each other in their youth meet again when middle age has come to both. Such a meeting can never be commonplace to either. Nor do the two see each other as they are visible to ordinary acquaintances. In the eyes of memory, the grey hair is replaced by the sunny locks of youth; the saddened eyes are bright again and eagerly out-looking into a world of abundant promise; the worn and furrowed brow becomes smooth and white, the pale cheeks touched with youthful bloom; and with a delicious sense of reciprocity each knows that the lost youth of both is present to the mind of either. 

***

But time gives us all something in return; a growing patience which brings sweetness and gentleness in its train; a wider outlook on the world and a deeper insight into the hearts of friends; a tender sympathy with those who suffer, and a truer sense of comradeship with our fellow-travellers on life’s road. And all these things write themselves clearly enough on the ageing faces, sometimes beautifying what once was almost destitute of charm; and sometimes spiritualising what once was beautiful in form and colour, but lacked the loveliness that results from an equal balance of mind and heart.

***

The Boy’s Lament

“What can a boy do, and where can a boy stay,
If he always is told to get out of the way?
He cannot sit here, and he mustn’t stand there,
The cushions that cover that gaily-decked chair
Were put there, of course, to be seen and admired;
A boy has no business to feel a bit tired.
The beautiful carpets with blossom and bloom
On the floor of the tempting and light-shaded room,
Are not made to be walked on—at least, not by boys.
The house is no place, anyway, for their noise.

.

There’s a place for the boys. They will find it somewhere,
And if our own homes are too daintily fair
For the touch of their fingers, the tread of their feet,
They’ll find it, and find it, alas! in the street,
’Mid the gildings of sin and the glitter of vice;
And with heartaches and longings we pay a dear price
For the getting of gain that our lifetime employs
If we fail in providing a place for our boys.

.

Though our souls may be vexed with the problems of life,
And worn with besetments and toiling and strife,
Our hearts will keep younger—your tired heart and mine—
If we give them a place in our innermost shrine;
And till life’s latest hour ’twill be one of our joys
That we keep a small corner—a place for the boys.”

***

Link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36330

_____________________________________________________________

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.

Creating a Lifestyle Worth Living

As I approach my thirties, I have come to truly learn what kind of job I can not only handle but not dread from day to day. From micromanaging bosses to the gossip around the watercooler, I have not looked back since choosing to go freelance. I worked during college at my school’s private library for four years as a part-time student assistant, then as a receptionist in a law firm, and finally as a library assistant in a public library before being fed up with the pace and lifestyle those kinds of jobs made for me.

I have always been self-driven and goal-directed without the “helpful push” of a boss. I have always been my own boss. (My carefully filled-out agenda each school year would tell you as much). And with this personality came the difficulty of watching my peers slack off and enjoy standing still in their jobs while I felt like I was suffocating. Once I had paid off my student loans in about five years, I resigned from my last employee-centered job and went full-time freelance.

I began my freelance proofreading journey by taking the Proofread Anywhere course in 2017, and by 2018, I had completed the exam successfully. At this time, I was a receptionist at a law firm because the law had always interested me. My philosophy professors in college certainly pushed their students into law during my time there. It was considered a more “practical job” over becoming a philosopher, I suppose.

Proofreading has now become my longest-held job, and I have no plans to quit now. To me, typos had always jumped out on the page while reading books or other people’s papers. Perhaps I can thank my mother and father for reading to me at an early age and allowing me to challenge myself with more difficult reading material. My mother was also a writer and her day job consisted of copywriting for publishing houses, and my father wrote poetry for pleasure. Words were always a part of my world.

As a child, I loved holding my younger brother hostage, reading out loud from any book I could get my hands on. I would read for hours until my voice gave out. All of those moments of getting lost in a book, listening to the cadence of my voice rising and falling like waves, were so deliciously addictive. Nothing interested me more than continuing to read…and I still feel the same way.

With copious amounts of reading blossoms a desire for quiet, space, and routine. I grew accustomed to sitting in my home alone in silence and maximizing my time to accommodate more reading. This lifestyle translated extremely well into becoming a remote proofreader. I pull up the chair to my desk with my rather small laptop open on it, sitting in the quiet and reading most of my transcripts and manuscripts out loud. The lull of my voice carries the words back into my head, tripping an alarm every time I come across an error or something that simply does not sound or look right.

I usually have a split screen between the piece I’m proofreading and the Internet or a style guide sheet. Usually, reference books are strewn around me on various tables to my left and right. The thing about proofreading is that you have all the answers at your fingertips—you just have to know where to quickly search for them. Decision fatigue sets in after answering a million questions that crop up after reading every sentence with so much care. This is why I am being paid to do it. Proofreading can cause headaches, eyestrain, and fatigue. I have experienced it all. But I am good at it, and, while it is hard work, I love it.

Opening up a fresh transcript from a court reporter, I learn so much about any number of topics. I always wanted to learn everything growing up, and since we have yet to produce a chip to insert into our brains, I have had to spend time reading to learn. My desire to know more is not hindered by my job now—it is quenched. I learn new legal terms in Latin or medical terms or criminal slang on any given day.

When a publishing company asked me to copyedit and/or proofread for them a few years into my proofreading career, I paused. In college, we had creative writing workshops which were essentially learning to give editorial advice on everything from developmental, structural, and grammatical aspects. And I loathed it. Why? Sadly, the culture in this country, especially in the universities, is one of liberal, collectivist thought. I disagreed to my core with most of the stories. The fictional pieces were filled with things the college students had read in their other classes or filled with childish clichés from a lack of reading enough or riddled with grammatical errors that were acceptable to pass off as a “stylistic choice” thanks to modern writers everywhere. Not only was editing not appealing to me, but freelance writing and journalism paid for writers to produce work for businesses and products that I did not care about. My words (and brainpower) felt too precious to waste on those challenging jobs, writing was already hard enough.

My college days taught me that I would never be able to become a professor, though I loved learning, or an editor, though I loved writing, or a traditionally published author, though I knew my writing was good enough. My choices were made and shaped so much by this culture. But without feeling too much pity for myself, I decided that I still wanted to live a happy life on this earth right here and now.

So I pulled away from the “traditional 9–5” in exchange for the atypical freelance life. I took control of who I interacted with on a daily basis, which mostly consists now of my husband, family, and friends. I behave with the proper etiquette to all strangers I meet, but I do not engage any more than I need to. I guard my time carefully, and I devote myself to the most black-and-white type of work possible in the writing world: proofreading.

In another blog post, I wrote about how I considered proofreading a skill, calligraphy a craft, and writing an art. I wrote the novels that were in my soul when they needed to be written and put them out into the world myself. I practiced calligraphy after a long workday to help free my mind from the meaning of words to focus more on the beautiful shapes they made instead. (Plus, I had always wanted my cursive to look like my mother’s when I was young). However, in the spirit of transparency, living in Iowa and in this dormant age, the royalty checks are not large enough and the calligraphy clients are few and far between. Most of my money comes from proofreading alone.

While I struggle financially, I am not a “starving artist” thanks to the help of my wonderful husband. I surely help supplement our family income, but I am not at all the breadwinner. I am learning to be okay with my status, investing myself in more of the domestic duties around the home while continuing to learn as much as I can, since knowledge means much more to me than wealth. In a proper society, the value that I produce would bring me the appropriate amount of money, but this is not a healthy period. I acknowledged this reality, and so I adapted my life accordingly.

I continue to incorporate my skill, craft, and art into my daily life, and it is not something I ever plan to retire from. I won my freedom back from a school system that expected us to conform to the traditional workforce. I have created a life that I feel good about. And with my husband and me beginning to plan for children, I can stay at home with them in the future while working. A new chapter of my life is beginning and, for once, I feel grounded and in control of it.

My hope is more people think critically about the work that would fit best with their own personality and lifestyle. I realize that my path of being very much a homebody and self-directed is not for everyone. But it is what makes me happy. What makes you happy? If you had all the free time in the world, what would you do with your time? Is there a way you can monetize your passion for something? Go out there and create the world you want to live in, even if that is only within your own four walls.

_____________________________________________________________

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 the Current Cultural Decay

Today’s cultural climate is full of desensitized and inefficacious people who assume that things just “happen” to them. People who are inefficacious disgust me. I have always sympathized with the truly great Men who take action. I love Men who fight against those who try to stop their innovation. They have efficacy and, therefore, my undying respect.

I can still remember, having been raised Protestant, seeing men, specifically, in church kneeling and I cringed, even as a child. I thought, “How lowly and weak they look!” Fast-forward to college and another late night reading session for tomorrow’s class where I have the works of Milton’s Paradise Lost and Marlowe’s version of Faust in my hands, further empathizing with the devil and the snake and Man who desires knowledge.

My sense of life became clearer to me when I felt this ferocity rise within at Man who is refused the ability to know and refused to feel proud of knowing. After all, our tool of survival is our mind, our reason! Why must Christianity squash the very thing that makes us capable of living? I find it pure evil.

Perhaps this moment of fierce rebellion in my soul, sitting in my college’s library, is why I always seem to come back to motifs of snakes and birds, heaven and hell, God and Satan, and Adam and Eve in my work. I cannot help but rage against those who tell me not to know when I have spent all my life trying to know everything! I’ve always said that if I could have a chip inserted into my brain with all human knowledge known today, then I would.

My fear is that we can go backwards as a society. Literary fiction and other art dies in a bad or sick culture. Today, all literary fiction is tribalistic and not about morality at all. The Left has thrown morality away since they believe it is incurably tied to religion, while the Right has kept to their small Christian publishing presses to put out more of the same religious morality texts. But where, oh where!, are the secular moralists who are capable of shining through the rubbish? Where are the writers and readers who want to learn how to be better and happier living their ever-longer lives on earth?!

Why are publishers saying no to any books that are not liberal or tribalistic in nature? Why is there outrage over “literary fiction” books even existing anymore? Because our culture is dying.

I can blame liberal ideology and religious ideology to a certain extent, but beyond that I am unsure. All I know is that the worst thing an individual can do is desensitize themselves to life. And, yet, drugs, drinking, hedonism in general, even rushing from one loud event to the next or traveling all over the world without one moment to rest are causing a group of desensitized people to roam around the earth and teach their children the same. When the music dies down and the party leaves, people can no longer stand being with their own thoughts and so they repeat the numbing process over and over again in one endless cycle.

I remember when I was presenting my literary thesis to my professors in undergrad. When I finished, one commented about how they thought it was a theatrical performance because of the way I read it and openly mocked me when I said that the meaning of life was about happiness. My professors were a product, in the most extreme way, of a culture that is dying, if not already dead. They were cynical, could not take their own subject seriously, and believe that “Truth” is outside of reality. My rebellious heart raged that day, and I will never forget it. Yet, again, here is the Left telling me that I cannot know anything, just as much as the religious Right does.

Well, I refuse to believe that I cannot know how to be happy or that it is not a worthy goal. And I would rather feel too much anxiety about every little thing in my life than nothing at all. I would rather feel deep gratitude for what appear to most as “boring” or “inane” things; I would rather feel endless sorrow for a loss in my life than to drown them in drink; I would rather behave as innocently as a child, than as cynically as a manic-depressive professor. Life becomes more bearable when you know madness does not arise “out of the blue” but is built up by hundreds of little acts of transgression over time that you and the others around you never cared to notice. Being in a desensitized state is a killer to human beings; don’t let it get you next.

_____________________________________________________________

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 Writing and Why I Chose Literary Fiction

As far as my opinions on writing go and the way I write, I have a few tips, though I am still young and things may come into sharper focus as I age.

Ever since childhood, I have used my “microscope” to help me find the words to say. I can look at something that others would pass right over and by noticing what makes it special, then the words and ideas come. It sort of is like a meditative process. One word of warning though if you become “stuck” in this writer’s perspective, then going to overly stimulating places (which, unfortunately, so very many people are fond of today) may cause great anxiety. I cannot seem to come out of this mindset or attention to detail, so I tend to feel the need to prepare myself before attending anything loud or overcrowded (medication helps too).

By staying with these “moments,” there is in the nature of them a sense of urgency, so holding onto them with words is akin to catching them in a net. The best way to access these special moments is by becoming a soldier of the arts. You should get up and follow a routine every day that allows your mind to focus on the unique bits and bobs that stray from the norm. They become more obvious to you when you are not rushing around your house looking for the house keys before running out the door for work.

My sense of gratitude and happiness comes from the effort that goes into working with a purpose—not from sunshine and rainbows. I never aim to suffer, but I surely am willing to give it my full effort to achieve my goal that promises more of a long-lasting feeling of contentment and pure bliss.

In terms of more specific writing tips, I would say to never introduce too many characters early on (like Dickens). It becomes “crow-blowing” (unlike in Les Misérables when one character is described for many pages). Only when the readers grasp the present character can they then move on to understanding another.

I also believe that it is a corrupt idea to say that fiction does not mirror reality, but instead creates a “new reality.” Literary fiction is only meant to show how reality (singular) ought to be and what it truly means to be human. There is no “other” reality being created.

Also, in scattershot form: always give details to bring the reader closer to the perspective/experience/character; never become too focused on the environment/social over the individual; main characters without values are not worth writing about because they are unrealistic; always remember that the universe is benevolent! 

To be a great writer, one must observe the world, study it, and then integrate to produce a creative product.

I love writing stories because I can walk through a moral problem that I am having from a rational (not spiritual) perspective and come to a conclusion that is satisfactory. That is why I find that outlines never really helped me because I had to work from a single scene in a logical progression until, due to contextual circumstances, I could only come to a single conclusion and that becomes my ending. Personally, it makes a book more enjoyable to write when you are unsure what the main answer is.

Although, I would say that ideas have come to me in many ways for the books I have written so far: sometimes it’s a single scene or vignette floating around in my head for a while, or the first sentence, or the last, or even just an environment that embodies an entire idea. If the idea is strong enough, then I find that I do not even need to write it down as other ideas for the next piece just keep building on themselves in my mind.

Ultimately, my desire is to bring the body back into literature—bring Man back into literature. My novels range from exploring the worst evils to the highest good done by Man. However, the naturalist movement of the late nineteenth century ripped the story away from the romanticized individual and onto the piece of land being sown with seed. Well, I would like to be remembered as the writer who analyzed a few moral topics within the philosophical branch of ethics that is set down in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. My goal in life is to teach people about secular morality by pointing to a time in history, such as mid-nineteenth century America, when I believe the culture was better. Literary fiction should teach and make Man better.

_____________________________________________________________

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 the Writer

I wrote in my “To Readers” blog post what my mission statement is as a writer: “I write to inspire readers to cherish the most meaningful moments found in daily life.” Now, that may sound like I am only writing slice-of-life pieces that rely heavily on realism. However, I find that the only way to enhance one’s view of life is to romanticize it. Thanks to Ayn Rand, I now have a philosophical framework by which to live—Objectivism. I have a clear picture of the “ideal man” (which is what Rand had set out to define in her own work), and I’m looking to get the most out of an objective world now.

But in order to “taste life twice,” I find that I must write. Rand brought together the previous romantic and realism eras in art to create “romantic realism,” which can literally be seen as (ought/romantic) to (be/realism). But I can only write when there is a desperate passion, an urgent force behind the idea. And the urgency comes easily to an atheist who does not want to miss a single moment of life. As Rilke states: “A work of art is good if it has arisen out of necessity.” This can be felt by the reader too. My soul should be wholly invested in my work, even if my audience remains small and silent. I am only writing to those who share my values and pleading with them to hear my cries through the written word. 

My pleas are always about happiness and the various paths toward and away from its heart. Tolstoy often gets brought up when he says, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” I tend to agree that there is a more specific path needed to attain happiness, while it is much easier to fall into unhappiness in any number of ways, which is why I show stories that end tragically due to unresolved errors and happily when errors are corrected. But my end goal is always to teach my readers how to be happier in their own lives by learning what to be wary of and what to enjoy in life. This desire stems from who I was as a young reader.

_____________________________________________________________

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 the Reader

I grew up with sensitive parents who each dealt with their own set of mental health difficulties. While I felt their love and affection during my key years of development, by seven, divorce shook my family to its core, and by eleven, death had riven it asunder. I would never be the same again and I was forced early on into the philosophical conundrum of asking “why?” Why did my mother have to die so young? Why do I deserve this suffering? Why can’t my family get along? Why is life so difficult?

Books became my way of searching for the “why” to life. It was the only way I knew how to do research. My parents both read and wrote, and so I became familiar early on with the concept of reading and escaping and learning and knowing through the page. I learned that reading and writing were my strengths throughout school as well.

That is why surface-level stories have not interested me since elementary school, when every book on the shelf felt like a gift or a piece of candy. But today, especially with so much out there, I do not have time for stories that are simply meant to entertain—not that there is anything immoral about them. But I have always wanted to learn how to be happy. I have always read literature with a purpose in mind, which is why I take it so seriously. How do I find happiness? I took the good and bad stories as a guide for what I should and should not do in order to be happy. And to do that, I had to judge.

I have learned so much more about humanity through literary fiction than any therapy session or movie or lecture in school. By asking myself why does the character behave that way, I can have a dialogue with the writer through their story. I can walk in those proverbial shoes of another human being to discover new things about myself and my own life story.

So there has always been this fire in my belly to know—to read and then compare that created world of the authors to my personal experience. Nothing will get you further in life than being honest with yourself first and foremost, and that it what I love the most about my parents. For I think they were each brutally honest with themselves and the world they lived in. I learned to never stray from taking an honest look at myself, which is what a writer must be: brutally honest with themselves and the world they live in.

Therefore, I hope that it has become clearer to you why I do not feel I have the time to read “genre fiction” but only “literary fiction.” It is not because I am being snobbish; it is because I need answers to live. If I didn’t have access to all the classics I have read thus far, then I may have suffocated a long time ago. For, you see, as a child who had no control over my external circumstances, something had to be under my control and I needed to know that life would get better and that I could make it so.

My reading and searching and effort paid off when I found the philosophy for living a happy life on earth, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. It gave me the secular kind of morality that I was searching for and the control I craved to steer my newfound adult life into the light. She saved me from the gut-wrenching feeling I had whenever I left my humanities classes in high school but could never explain clearly. I was suffering from a public school system that rapidly became less about learning how this world works and more about how guilty I should feel for even breathing. The message of guilt only heightened in degree in college until I had to find more of a concrete link to Objectivism through the Ayn Rand Institute and all they had to offer.

High school and college life made me feel like that out-of-control child, where life was determined and I had to succumb to a fate where life was “nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes). I have felt existential dread before, but it was due to an entire educational system that, overall, refused to integrate. My supply of air was thinning out, and the anxiety beast inside of me rose up and fought to take over my life. After lots of therapy and medication and building up my adult life away from the school system, I am finally starting to feel like I am on stable ground again.

To me, good literature reveals truths about who we are as humans—from the best in us to the worst. In that sense, I agree with John Gardner who wrote On Moral Fiction. We need more moral fiction, not in the religious sense, but in the way that it can inspire and guide people toward virtue and against vice in order to attain happiness. Again, we have come to an age that no longer needs religion, but it most certainly still needs a moral code. Ayn Rand gave us a philosophical framework to live by such values but now, I believe, people need to see a barrage of examples of secular-based morality.

Sadly, people still believe that morality is inextricably linked to Judeo-Christian beliefs. But people must live according to the laws of reality or else they will die. And, again, going back to the Tolstoyan idea, there are essentially so many ways to die and only one way to live. Maybe that’s why reading books with tragic endings raises the hairs on our heads, because we are learning how to avoid death. At least, that is how seriously I take my reading and writing endeavors, and I hope you will too.

_____________________________________________________________

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.