I know too many people believe that Nietzsche and Rand are incompatible with each other. And many other would say that Mises is a hardcore intellectual, while the other two are amateurs blessed by fame.
My view is that Nietzsche provides an exquisite framework for the development of the individual, applying his own kind of methodological scepticism (not nihilism as many say) and a goal that will keep you pushing all your life to be your best. Rand provides a very good framework for interpersonal relations and the general behaviour in society. Mises gives a method for thinking in the social sciences.
Neither of them is able to give a good framework for art or exact sciences, but I don`t think there is any need for that. It doesn't matter if you are a mentally impaired mass killer, you still can be a great mathematician or a great painter (dumb geniuses, perhaps).
I already apply this system of the great three masters to my own life, and I would like "spread the word" about it. But I am not sure if that is desirable at all. I would like you to give me your opinion, not on the system per se, but on the need to publicize it and of the real possibilities of doing such a thing.
Have you got any experiences to tell?
I see the system to teach/learn as a sort of freemason society, maybe with a Latter-Day-Saints twist.
As I write down the idea I am starting to get contrary feelings for it, specially as my two references are two of the most hated institutions in the history of the world. However, a system that looks like an atheistic religion could be a great idea for the rapid spread of the Libertarian ideals. The main differences are that the system wouldn't be exclusivistic, and it would be open to different interpretations. In a way it could be said my system is western Theravada buddhism.
Please don't flame me, I am just thinking aloud here.
Pity the theory which sets itself up in opposition to the mind!
Carl Von Clausewitz
I would expect that the reason many people see Rand and Nietzsche as incompatible would be rooted in their views about what totally self-interested people ought to do. Rand seemed to believe that to disrespect others would be to stifle one's own capacity for fulfillment and self-actualization; rejecting the value of human life would be disastrous. Nietzsche, on the other hand, would likely have condemned this view as nonsense spawned by the weak to subjugate the strong. The path to self-realization, he might argue, did not necessarily demand that one treat others with complete respect for their rights. Rather, the strong should feel proud of their advantages, and utilize them accordingly, even if that meant shoving others to the side in the process. Because both Nietzsche and Rand based their views on a sort of egoism, but reached completely different conclusions, it seems to me that one would have to choose one or the other; both can't be right.
Though it does not concern Nietzsche, this article does attempt to examine the views of Menger, Rand and Mises. Rand is, in many ways, a fusion of Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke and Nietzsche.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
gussosa: I know too many people believe that Nietzsche and Rand are incompatible with each other. And many other would say that Mises is a hardcore intellectual, while the other two are amateurs blessed by fame. My view is that Nietzsche provides an exquisite framework for the development of the individual, applying his own kind of methodological scepticism (not nihilism as many say) and a goal that will keep you pushing all your life to be your best. Rand provides a very good framework for interpersonal relations and the general behaviour in society. Mises gives a method for thinking in the social sciences. Neither of them is able to give a good framework for art or exact sciences, but I don`t think there is any need for that. It doesn't matter if you are a mentally impaired mass killer, you still can be a great mathematician or a great painter (dumb geniuses, perhaps). I already apply this system of the great three masters to my own life, and I would like "spread the word" about it. But I am not sure if that is desirable at all. I would like you to give me your opinion, not on the system per se, but on the need to publicize it and of the real possibilities of doing such a thing. Have you got any experiences to tell? I see the system to teach/learn as a sort of freemason society, maybe with a Latter-Day-Saints twist. As I write down the idea I am starting to get contrary feelings for it, specially as my two references are two of the most hated institutions in the history of the world. However, a system that looks like an atheistic religion could be a great idea for the rapid spread of the Libertarian ideals. The main differences are that the system wouldn't be exclusivistic, and it would be open to different interpretations. In a way it could be said my system is western Theravada buddhism. Please don't flame me, I am just thinking aloud here.
I'm actually still a fan of Nietzsche. He's one of the few philosophers who is actually fun to read. Before I encountered Rand, I was something of a Nietzschean. While I'm still strongly influenced by Rand, I'm no Objectivist. It is possible to think of Rand as a Nietzschean who believes in objective (but contextual) truth and morality, with Locke and perhaps more Aristotle mixed in. Nietzsche was trying to avoid nihilism, but I'm not sure he avoids an excessive relativism on truth and morality. One thing that Nietzsche brings to the table that Rand's philosophy has lacked (see Branden's essay on the benefits and hazards of Objectivism) is more attention to moral psychology and personal moral development. Nietzsche is helpful for showing you how to create yourself, so to speak, to the extent that you can. But I think Nietzsche overestimates the extent to which you can.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Donny with an A: I would expect that the reason many people see Rand and Nietzsche as incompatible would be rooted in their views about what totally self-interested people ought to do. Rand seemed to believe that to disrespect others would be to stifle one's own capacity for fulfillment and self-actualization; rejecting the value of human life would be disastrous. Nietzsche, on the other hand, would likely have condemned this view as nonsense spawned by the weak to subjugate the strong. The path to self-realization, he might argue, did not necessarily demand that one treat others with complete respect for their rights. Rather, the strong should feel proud of their advantages, and utilize them accordingly, even if that meant shoving others to the side in the process. Because both Nietzsche and Rand based their views on a sort of egoism, but reached completely different conclusions, it seems to me that one would have to choose one or the other; both can't be right.
Well, there support in Nietzsche's writings that he favored being good, gracious, non-vengeful, etc. He was also anti-political and anti-state. Lester Hunt has an interesting book chapter on this, but not for the same reasons as libertarians usually are.
Donny with an A:Rather, the strong should feel proud of their advantages, and utilize them accordingly, even if that meant shoving others to the side in the process.
I believe he meant 'not caring if others get crushed in the course of your evolution'. Taking an example of The Invincibles, if you can run faster than any kid in your school, you should just run as fast as you can, not caring if hurt feelings or make them feel sorry about themselves. Another example would be that charity by itself is meaningless and a waste of your precious resources, you better keep that money for yourself. Charity is reasonable only if that makes you advance towards your goals.
There is another consequence.
You should love the fight.
If someone runs faster than you, he is setting a record for you to break. It is your duty as a Nietzschean to try as hard as you can to be better than him. It is not his duty to run slower so you can reach him. In fact, it is completely undesriable.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: But I think Nietzsche overestimates the extent to which you can.
Well, that could be a valid interpretation. However, I believe Nietzsche proposed that you should always improve yourself. He never says that you should be perfect, he says that you should try to be perfect. As Zaratustra is pointing "the way for the overman", it is implicit that part of your goal is to help other people become overmen (being alone and surrounded by scoundrels isn't fun at all). As you can't possibly help everyone, the goal of the overman is beyond possible achievement in one's life.
As I view it, Nietzsche is an antidote to the Ecclesiastes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes
Ecclesiastes pointed out that there is no sense-of-life. Nietzsche says "there is A sense of life: to ever improve yourself and help others do the same". And as far as I know it the only "sense of life" that claims that there is a reward for your actions during your life time, and that reward is the dynamic sense of achievement. While other systems ask for static compliance to given rules, Nietzsche asks for the attainment of success through always increasing levels of evolution. But it doesn't mean an evolution through stages, as the sci-fi religious people say; it is a continuum.
gussosa: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: But I think Nietzsche overestimates the extent to which you can. Well, that could be a valid interpretation. However, I believe Nietzsche proposed that you should always improve yourself. He never says that you should be perfect, he says that you should try to be perfect.
Well, that could be a valid interpretation. However, I believe Nietzsche proposed that you should always improve yourself. He never says that you should be perfect, he says that you should try to be perfect.
Hhmmm...that's not what I meant. What I meant was that I think Nietzsche underestimated the extent toward which human nature and the nature of reality delimits how much about yourself you can change or create. You're not totally malleable. On the other hand, there are moralists who think that only one moral code (not just rights but a detailed set of rules) and only one culture (their own) is right and ordained by Nature or God, and so leave little or no room for choice and self-creation.
Geoffrey, the link you provided directs me back to Branden's article. As much as I love that article, I don't think it was what you meant to send me to. Did you mean to refer me to Nietzsche and the Origin of Virtue? I haven't spoken with Dr. Hunt on the subject, and most of the Nietzsche to which I've been exposed has been filtered through someone else's reading, so I could have a completely misguided view of his ideas. But I was under the impression that for Nietzsche, the notion that individuals are inviolable or have rights that one must respect would be an alien one. I had always thought that to Nietzsche, others were to be respected to the extent that one valued them, and if one's own personal development required it, they should be swept aside. But the opposite view seems quite central to Ayn Rand's philosophy, in that she would likely object strongly to the notion that others could ever be safely thought of as "sacrificial animals" for one's own purposes. As evidence, I'd point to her discussions of the mental and emotional states of those in positions of political authority, both in her fiction and in her essays.
I think you could very plausibly argue that if Nietzsche were correct in his implication that one's personal development could require one to trample the rights of others, then Rand would be committed to letting go of her talk of rights by her theory's egoistic foundations. And likewise, if Rand were correct about the necessity of an attitude of respect for persons for a healthy and fulfilling life, Nietzsche would be committed to letting go of his more ruthless suggestions. But if my interpretation is correct, then one could not hold both Rand and Nietzsche to have been correct at the same time, in spite of the obvious similarities in the way that their paradigms are composed.
Gussosa, I did not mean to suggest that Rand and Nietzsche's views were entirely opposed to each other; as I understand them, both build their views around the notion of celebrating man's potential for achievement and self-actualization, and to both of them this meant being somewhat insensitive to the envy or frustration of others. My point was only to show that there's a major point of disagreement between Rand and Nietzsche, which I explained above, and that if people viewed the two as incompatible, that would likely be the major reason why.
Donny with an A:Geoffrey, the link you provided directs me back to Branden's article. As much as I love that article, I don't think it was what you meant to send me to. Did you mean to refer me to Nietzsche and the Origin of Virtue?
Oops! You're right. I fixed the link. It's a chapter of that book.
Donny with an A:But I was under the impression that for Nietzsche, the notion that individuals are inviolable or have rights that one must respect would be an alien one.
Right. I didn't say Nietzsche believed in rights though.
Donny with an A:I had always thought that to Nietzsche, others were to be respected to the extent that one valued them, and if one's own personal development required it, they should be swept aside.
What do you mean by swept aside?
Donny with an A:And likewise, if Rand were correct about the necessity of an attitude of respect for persons for a healthy and fulfilling life, Nietzsche would be committed to letting go of his more ruthless suggestions.
Perhaps you could quote or cite some of his more ruthless suggestions? I'm not saying he was a libertarian or pacifist, but I think his ruthlessness toward others is probably oft exaggerated. He had a low opinion of most people but in places he tells the powerful to be gracious, to requite evil with good, to be polite to petty annoyances, etc. One of my favorite passages in Zarathustra: "When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible - such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Donny with an A:I think you could very plausibly argue that if Nietzsche were correct in his implication that one's personal development could require one to trample the rights of others,
Interpretation of Nietzsche is admittedly difficult, but I'm not sure Nietzsche would necessarily support this even though if I'm right it wouldn't be because he thought people had rights.
Walter Kaufmann, who has done the best translations of half of Nietzsche's works, has a good intellectual biography of Nietzsche, although arguably too humanizing. I don' t know. I really need and want to get back into Nietzsche when I'm done with my dissertation.
Well the problem is that I honestly can't cite anything, since my exposure to Nietzsche has been through classes and discussions, but not through reading his work myself. So that's why I said I'm particularly vulnerable to having internalized others' unsubstantiated interpretations. If I'm spewing garbage, I apologize.
From what I've heard, though, it sounds like Nietzsche wrote some of his stuff in a rather exploratory manner, where he wasn't really sure of what he was saying. If that's the case, then it could be that Nietzsche actually didn't have a concrete position, and that his attitudes changed from one place to another in his work. That might explain why different people hold different interpretations. But it could just be that I've learned about Nietzsche from people who didn't know anything about him; it wouldn't be the first time!
Donny with an A: Well the problem is that I honestly can't cite anything, since my exposure to Nietzsche has been through classes and discussions, but not through reading his work myself. So that's why I said I'm particularly vulnerable to having internalized others' unsubstantiated interpretations. If I'm spewing garbage, I apologize. From what I've heard, though, it sounds like Nietzsche wrote some of his stuff in a rather exploratory manner, where he wasn't really sure of what he was saying. If that's the case, then it could be that Nietzsche actually didn't have a concrete position, and that his attitudes changed from one place to another in his work. That might explain why different people hold different interpretations. But it could just be that I've learned about Nietzsche from people who didn't know anything about him; it wouldn't be the first time!
I'm not sure how contradictory Nietzsche's work is, or how much of that isn't deliberate. There are consistent, running themes, however, and some ideas that develop and mature. As I said, it's difficult to interpret, in large part due to his style (aphoristic, subversve, etc.). It is very easy to take him out of context, as was done by anti-semites and Nazis, who made him appear to say the opposite of what he really believed. There's probably something for everybody if you don't put it into context with the whole. I think most of the ruthlessness is turned inward, on the self.
As an Objectivist here I'll say that I think Nietzsche's ideas of individualism influenced Rand early in life, but she was more influenced by Locke and Aristotle if you've read ITOE and noticed how she cuts through and examines the issues of epistemology from the problem of essences being metaphysical versus essences being epistemological (nominal essences of Locke, but in your 'head' and not just around the world floating here and there) as she would propose. I think her views on epistemology are more or less captures the nature of science in a manner that doesn't deny induction, but equally doesn't throw away deduction either (rather I believe she was attempting to implicitly bridge the gap based on assuming the law of identity itself as 'physical' law from which deduction then can get a foot hold from, rather than dividing deduction from induction...). On her views on Art, honestly I think they're too narrow in some respects as I find even non-representational art to be very human friendly like De Stijl in which one notice the beauty of the art from a more abstract perspective (such as mathematical beauty and such) where as she would skinned me alive for such a proposition. Also, I would say that Objectivism oddly mirrors or complements a proper interpretation of basic Taoist thought in the manner that both Objectivism and Taoism reject a religious view of the Universe and supports an more individualistic perspective to understand reality (as well as an oddly similar view on government).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
ladyattis:On her views on Art, honestly I think they're too narrow in some respects as I find even non-representational art to be very human friendly like De Stijl in which one notice the beauty of the art from a more abstract perspective (such as mathematical beauty and such) where as she would skinned me alive for such a proposition.
I have read Rand's opinions on art and she really seems to be too narrow minded. Apparently she liked more the romanticism (the movement, not the genre) and so proclaimed that all art must be romantic.
Ok, maybe the outstanding and the achievement of the seemingly impossible is the most fun and inspiring, like a Vin Diesel movie; but many many times what you want to show is the glory in the little everyday fights. That could be a dialog of Woody Allen, or one of the dramas of Danny DeVito (e.g. Jack The Bear or The Big Kahuna) And there are times when you don't even want to convey a message (like in abstract art as you say) and just want to make the person stop and feel.
I have been many times about to have fist fights with other writers because I say that bad poets write poems impossible to be understood. Good poets GENERALLY write simple poems. If you ever go to a poetry festival you will probably start saying to yourself "What th f* did that mean?".
I haven't got a strong opinion on art (despite being a professional writer myself) but I do believe that bad artists do what they can, good artists do what they want, and art is always an expression of individualism. Having said that, even a bag of potatoes can be considered art, if the designer tried to show HIS view (of life, beauty, universe, ease of use, etc) and didn't just copy another model or followed an industry standard.
Don't worry, Mrs. Rand would kill me first.