Alex Epstein (X, Substack) is a philosopher, energy expert, and the author of two New York Times bestselling books: Fossil Future and The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
First off, glad to see Epstein here and Ayn Rand discussed more. Rand is my primary philosophic influence and I'd proudly consider myself in the "99.9%" agreement with Objectivism category.
But to quickly address the family category; I don't think her philosophy is "anti-family" as such. It's anti-duty, and one of the most common aspects where unchosen obligations pop up is in regard to family.
Rand posits that values have to be rational in regards to human standards judged according to *your own life*. Clearly tying oneself to family in the cases of the novels - i.e. Rearden's wife and mom who live off of him while resenting and attempting to sabotage him, or in real life an abusive spouse or parents, are *unhealthy* relationships. What Rand is pushing back on is the idea that you should destroy yourself in attempting to save people, including family, who do not deserve it simply because they are relations. She is *not* claiming that all family relations as such aren't worthwhile.
If you get into the essays, she addresses this in, I believe, the Art of Fiction. While in reality, there are many instances where one could have a talk to explain all the nuances of family and duty, the fiction is not a place for discussion of family values not related to the plot. The drama consists of highlighting the extremes and throwing them together, i.e. Keating the consumate 2nd hander and Roark, the extreme 1st hander. In short, there aren't extensive discussion of children and healthy family relationships because they didn't come into the plot. But all things considered, there are We The Living, Atlas Shrugged, and Anthem - the fiction covers tremendous ground.
She's very much a protofeminist in a lot of ways, she didn't feel like raising a family, and constructed a philosophy where she didn't have to.
Interestingly, it was one that allied itself with the right. She seems to be the rarer type of masculine woman who tends to ally with men instead of trying to oppose them. (A later example might be Camille Paglia.)
Proto-2nd wave? There's a lot of self-determination stuff in there, though she wound up on the other side politically. It just goes to show that while personality does correlate with politics, that correlation is not absolute, and some 'masculine' women may be conservative.
Ayn Rand did not provide an epistemological foundation for capitalism. Her system was a mess and led to dogmatism—and I’m not just referring to her bad behavior. When you are a justificationist (explained in link below), you will be predisposed towards dogmatism even if you behave extremely well. https://open.substack.com/pub/jclester/p/critical-rationalism?r=b5zww&utm_medium=ios
Writing extensively on the epistemological foundations of capitalism does not mean she was successful. She may have made some good arguments in favor of capitalism but justificationism is not logically possible (see the linked article above).
I’m simply rebutting the claim that she provided an epistemological foundation. That’s a logical impossibility. Objectivism is a philosophical dead end. At best, Rand converted some intelligent people to the view that entrepreneurs and capitalism are essential to prosperity but this could have been done without the albatross of Objectivism/virtue of selfishness. Hanania is himself a justificationist, so he doesn’t see her failure in that regard (even if he rejects Objectivism). No doubt he sees her as “EHC”, but she embodies the cultish side of EHC. He thinks white advocates are “unhealthy” but, ironically, Rand and many of her followers were unhealthy.
In the opening paragraph of the article You equate axioms wish dogmatism, but that’s clearly an arbitrary assertion that can be dismissed out of hand. Dogma is the belief in a proposition with insufficient evidence, you don’t appear to allow for the idea of a non-dogmatic axiom, ie an axiom that can be validated empirically. Given that this failing is in your opening paragraph and that this very issue is covered in the Objectivist literature, (specifically in the book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff) this strongly suggests to me that you’re unfamiliar with Ayn Rand’s epistemology.
I think if you use the bits about self-determination and not being a victim that will be helpful for a lot of people, particularly young men these days who get a lot of hostile propaganda about how awful they are. I think Ayn Rand is a good counter to woke misandry. I don't think a lot of the more extreme views work--life is a lot about ass-kissing the right people, for instance.
Thanks for your response. I think it is a good thing to not be a victim for sure. There are many philosophies that offer ways of thinking that help us humans, male or female (or whatever creative alternatives some of us come up with just to defy the reality that some of us see) and I think that Ayn Rand's take on the way we should live and the values we should have are lacking in common-sense.
I have raised 3 boys, in their 40's and 50's now and I have a grandson 7 years old. These men and boys are not and never did be irritated by the 'hostile propaganda' that you refer to. They understood that this 'propaganda' and the creation of the toxic masculinity trope is a reality. Their father was a toxic male, a sad old alcoholic now with no contact with his sons. It happens. Men are more violent than women. Deal with it.
There are toxic women of course. Is it necessary to say this? But we are less violent.
Male aggression needs to be dealt with during childhood and adolescence. My men/boys understand that it is not all men that are toxic and men who are toxic, it is because they were badly raised and encouraged to believe women are the enemy and out to get them or something.
As others have noted in the comments, Rand has nothing to say about how a family should treat each other and is wrong, the foundation of human achievement is cooperation and altruism not selfishness.
If altruism wasn't fundamental to life, women would not risk their bodies and lives to grow another human with all the sacrifices to one's individuality selfish desires etc, that need to be made during pregnancy when we are feeding a separate life and then, what is breastfeeding but altruism writ large?
And you see, we women are choosing not to give up our freedom, our individuality, our right to choose and we are choosing not to make babies. That's where selfishness gets us.
"If altruism wasn't fundamental to life, women would not risk their bodies and lives to grow another human with all the sacrifices to one's individuality selfish desires etc, that need to be made during pregnancy when we are feeding a separate life and then, what is breastfeeding but altruism writ large?"
My understanding is that having a baby can be rationally a selfish decision. You're willing to "sacrifice" your body, take-on the risks of pregnancy, and everything else because bringing a new life into this world AND raising a great human being is valuable to you. Therefore you're not doing it out of altruism or merely social pressures or due to the patriarchy.
In the same vein, if a woman is opting not to have a baby because she values her body, or her career more than being a full-time mom, then that is also OK. But again, it would have to be a rationally selfish decision to purse these paths, and not a decision made because you're following what your childless peers are doing.
So when do you think that getting pregnant was a choice for women? Perhaps some women in the past, before the contraceptive pill, had some secret way of not getting pregant but I think the idea of a woman rationally weighing up the pros and cons of having a child is a very modern idea.
But it is happening, in my extended family there are young couples who are choosing not to have children mainly because climate change. And they can choose.
But as I remember it, in the recent past all there was for women pre pill, was to just say no and keep ones legs together, but rape and that masculine energy to dominate, especially when encouraged by a belief that patriachy is a good thing, leads men to assume they have a right to use a woman's body to make themselves feel powerful.
Women never have had, for most of life on earth, a real choice not to ruin our bodies, (it used to be said that every pregnancy costs a tooth), and at the worst risk death. Childbirth is a risky business and from the stats, the US has much higher rates of infant mortality during childbirth than we do here in Australia even with all our marvellous modern nedicine.
It's not men's fault of course, it's our biology. Nature isn't fair but it is up to us to use our human nature and intelligence to make to make it as fair as possible and provide justice for all.
The fact is that creating life and nurturing it, does require altruism, altruism as a fundamental aspect of life, not altruism as a conscious choice to engage in an exchange.
Altruism is much deeper than that. My point is that it is so fundamental to our biology, that we will never be happy without acknowledging that we are biological beings, essentially irrational because we are animals, we need a society because reciprocity benefits everone, we are not individuals who can go through life making the best decisions through being sekfish.
Poor Ayn Rand was such an unhappy woman. If you have seen the interview of her, it is obvious the the woman needed therapy and rehab for her drug abuse.
The abuse that went on in the inner circle of her cult, as detailed by some of the desciples who escaped is quite appalling and must rule her out as offering a good philosophy to live by.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, thanks for replying. I'm on my phone and it's not that easy to reply on such a small screen and I can't see your reply so not sure now that what I have said is appropriate.
I'd guess pre-enlightenment, most everything sucked and you did what the church or society told you to do, regardless of sex. I'm sure while death from pregrnancies were quite high, more men died from war, daily riguors of their occupation, and just natural accidents. I believe Rand has argued that post-englightenment, people have fewer and fewer excuses to conform to tradition, the "patriarchy", etc... because we can all now use our minds and for most of the western world, we had the freedom to pursue many of our self-interests.
As the same time, I can imagine in a pre-enlightement world that having kids was probably the best choice for most women to survive in a cruel and challenging world without that many good options (for all humans). It's not like they could have said, "I dont' want to have any kids because I need to challenge Gallileo...". Most men didn't have many good options, either.
Not having children because of concerns for climate change would be considered an irrational decsion because in almost every plausible scenario, it has no impact to the future child, the society, or themselves. And thus they may be lying to themselves about it. Rather, it would be rational to say, "we're not having any kids because we're concerned about climate change, and we both want to dedicate all our lives to fight it 24/7. We think this is more important purpose for us, than to raise kids in the uncertain future." But if they're not having kids, yet still fly around the world on vacations, consume a lot of great Australian beef, etc... then their expressed values are not in alignment with their actions (not judging them sepecifically, btw).
While the birth stats have been refuted to not be accurate to use when comparing between countries, I agree there is still considerable risk for women. My wife had 4 kids naturally, and the last two was delivered by just me and her at our home. We're not religious. We knew there was risks, but we balanced them with the benefits of the process. We selfishly chose this path. There is the self esteem from her to know she can do it without a medical professional and outside a hospital, doing something that 99% of the western world doesn't do. There's also the excitement of raising kids, the ablity to problem-solve when challenges arise, the potential to meet other like-minded parents, future in-laws, etc...
Altruism is not such an obvious ingredient to me to raise and nurture kids. However, I would 100% admit that I'm not always consistent and I could also by lying to myself (perhaps like in this reply) that I'm truly a rationally selfish Dad!
"I believe Rand has argued that post-englightenment, people have fewer and fewer excuses to conform to tradition, the "patriarchy", etc... because we can all now use our minds and for most of the western world, we had the freedom to pursue many of our self-interests."
But this is nonsense. There really is no evidence that humans male or female or whatever can think fully rationally. You do undertstand that don't you? Prior to wokeness, this idea of fully rational human brains has been totally and comprehensively debunked.
Paricularly in economic theory, it is the case that more and more the assumed rationality of human choices that underps economic theories is shown to not work because humans are not rational. We might think we are making rational decisions but we can't first because we don't know the future, these days anyway and ssecond because we just do not have the mental capacity to take into account all the relevant information or even recognise when something is relevant to the choice we are making.
You know, I am old (did I say that already) and my father, back in the day a long time ago said that both socialism and free market capitalism would both work if it wasn't for human nature, and human irrationality. So again this is not a woke idea.
But what is our nature? Evolutionary psychology is still in its infancy and we can't make many definite statements that humans are rational and can always make good decisions in the face of all the results from psychology research that shows we are not at heart or mind, rational thinkers.
And this research is not woke. There is a limit to our ability to take into account all the information that we need to make a rational fully informed decisions. Even genises like Musk do not know everything they need to make the best decision. That is clear in his history.
I am not saying that altruism is an emotion or a factor in individual decision making. I am saying that it exists because there has to be a balance in nature of which we are a part. Altruism as a concept that drives evolution just as much as selfishness does.
It is encoded in the female thinking process because there has to be balance in nature, between the impulse to selfishness and the impulse to care for others. We did not evolve as individuals but as families and it words best if there is balance.
Like the yin yang concept in Chinese philosophy. You do know the east Asians are smarter than us whites so we should look to their thinking for some answers that we might have missed.
Anyway good for you to be birthing your own babies. I had four kids too, 3 boys and a girl, and 3 grandkids. And back in the days when I was a full on hippie, with all the free love and everything, we birthed our own babies too. Well some did, there was one time when the woman lost confidence and had to be taken to a hospital. Who knows how it would have turned out but it was very good to have the free health care system that we have here in Australia.
As you say, "But if they're not having kids, yet still fly around the world on vacations, consume a lot of great Australian beef, etc... then their expressed values are not in alignment with their actions (not judging them sepecifically, btw)."
I don't think there is anything wrong with judging the people who selfishly fly round the world at the same time as supporting climate change. The hypocrisy is appalling. All this ugly consumption is so stupid. I don't know where to start to express my horror.
The idea is that it will be a shitty life for any kids that have to grow up in the warming planet where nothing will be predictable no matter how rational one is. My offspring who have had kids are wondering how to help them survive the coming instability and unpredictability. jSome say learn coding but what if the internet goes???
Anyway, so good to talk like this eh? I'm one of those diagnosed late in life as being on the spectrum so I apparently don't have social skills and I know despite my very high IQ (its been tested by resgistered neuropsych) that I make very bad decisions, and do not understand what others are saying to me, so forgive any rudeness you might see in my writing. I do appreciate the opportunity to say what I think without any censorship and discuss the crap that is happening in our world.
I would actually have agreed with you more 20 or 30 years ago, when I was growing up. I thought her whole hypercapitalist thing was kind of dumb and she preached a form of self-reliance and ignoring other people that was ultimately self-destructive. I agree with you and don't think Ayn Rand is a good *complete* guide to life. Hanania's at the 90th percentile of Rand appreciators...I'm at the 60th or 70th. She has good points, and is very different from most of the writers that get celebrated. That doesn't make her a sage in the manner of, say, Jesus, Buddha, or Confucius.
Nowadays I think men are encouraged to be too passive and feminine and can wind up mocked on the Internet and lose their jobs if they ask the wrong girl out. I admit I got a lot of liberal, feminist values growing up, and was seen as too 'weak' by women until I decided to act a little more confident and 'toxic'...I was too far to the feminine pole and had to move back toward the masculine. It's a spectrum, everything is.
There's also a general culture of victimology I think Rand can be a corrective to. The Stoic philosophers are probably better I think, but our society does require a certain degree of selfishness. I don't think a young Japanese kid would have much use for her, for instance.
I think human achievement is a mix of cooperation and selfishness. The Greeks talked about the golden mean, the Chinese about yin and yang. Usually the optimal choice is some kind of balance between two extremes, and where exactly that balance is struck depends on the time and place.
So I agree with you, altruism is fundamental to life...and men of the old school would sacrifice too for their families, working difficult and odious jobs to provide money. Still, pure altruism leads you to be exploited by the unscrupulous...peaceful cultures are conquered by violent ones, nice people fall for sociopaths. Capitalism produces more wealth than communism...though without a welfare state and redistribution it rapidly becomes unstable due to excess inequality as we saw in the 20s and 30s (and are seeing now again).
As for women choosing not to make babies...doesn't bother me, I dodged the childrearing draft myself so am in no position to judge. :) You hear one conservative opinion and attribute to me the full suite of opinions of a conservative...which I guess is statistically likely, but is not in fact the case here.
Thank you for discussing Ayn Rand and her work with Alex. First, Alex is a genius in his own right, and his work on energy and defending the use of fossil fuels will place him way above many so-called climate intellectuals (when history measures such thinkers) if Western Civilization survives (and the jury is out on this state of affairs). Second, I really appreciate your work and your evident willingness to challenge your own ideas in various domains. I do think you will grow to appreciate Rand’s philosophy even more as you continue to read more of her work (but rereading it is the real master key to a fuller understanding of Objectivism). Finally, I think that anyone, who has actually read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and who doesn’t come away with at least some realization that Rand has identified a new compelling theory of moral philosophy, is either a fraud (someone who either hasn’t read those books and/or is unable to understand them) or their own brand of ideologue.
If you’re looking for suggestions on people to interview might I recommend C. Bradley Thompson. I think you would really appreciate his writing on American history specifically on the American Revolution and the importance of their moral philosophy (best represented in the Declaration of Independence).
I'm probably at the 60th or 70th percentile of Rand appreciation--I like her more than most people on the left do, and more than Christian conservatives. There are certainly good things about Rand. The whole self-determination thing's good for a certain sort of highly agentic young man (and the occasional woman), and capitalism does do a lot of things right. She's one of the very few people to write a non-leftist novel of ideas, and the only one I know that's still read today.
However, her philosophy doesn't seem to have done her much good long-term (though she did get to live in New York and do polyamory in the 50s, which is something), and it didn't really pass on. Libertarianism never catches on, because as strictly constructed (and Rand was very much for strict construction-Objectivism's even more stringent) it doesn't satisfy enough of the population that wants some kind of a welfare state to ameliorate risk. The watered down 'socially liberal, economically conservative' neoliberal synthesis was pretty prosperous and lasted from about 1989-2008, which isn't terrible as ideological regimes go.
I'm still glad libertarians are around--the power of the government to deal out force with public approbation is a terrible one, and libertarians are one of the few groups to criticize government overreach of the left and right.
Very interesting discussion. Alex talks a lot about disliking the idea of sacrifice as moral but I'm not entirely clear if thinks that we should never sacrifice for others without self interest or if he just wants to knock it down a peg to point out that you can have lots of moral behavior that doesn't actually involve sacrifice. He says at one point that he gives to charity so I presume it is the latter, but the way he talks it sounds more like the former?
He also talks about selfishness a lot, but it seems like he is really talking about self-interest. The common use of the word selfishness is to describe when self-interest is taken to such an extreme that you are willing to hurt other people or degrade your own social capital. Why does he feel the need to not use the word "self-interest", is it that he actually doesn't believe that you can ever be too selfish? I'd love to hear his opinion about the morality of a company that arbitrarily raises the price of insulin because they have a government-enforced monopoly, or other situations where self-interest does seem to conflict with societal good.
First off, glad to see Epstein here and Ayn Rand discussed more. Rand is my primary philosophic influence and I'd proudly consider myself in the "99.9%" agreement with Objectivism category.
But to quickly address the family category; I don't think her philosophy is "anti-family" as such. It's anti-duty, and one of the most common aspects where unchosen obligations pop up is in regard to family.
Rand posits that values have to be rational in regards to human standards judged according to *your own life*. Clearly tying oneself to family in the cases of the novels - i.e. Rearden's wife and mom who live off of him while resenting and attempting to sabotage him, or in real life an abusive spouse or parents, are *unhealthy* relationships. What Rand is pushing back on is the idea that you should destroy yourself in attempting to save people, including family, who do not deserve it simply because they are relations. She is *not* claiming that all family relations as such aren't worthwhile.
If you get into the essays, she addresses this in, I believe, the Art of Fiction. While in reality, there are many instances where one could have a talk to explain all the nuances of family and duty, the fiction is not a place for discussion of family values not related to the plot. The drama consists of highlighting the extremes and throwing them together, i.e. Keating the consumate 2nd hander and Roark, the extreme 1st hander. In short, there aren't extensive discussion of children and healthy family relationships because they didn't come into the plot. But all things considered, there are We The Living, Atlas Shrugged, and Anthem - the fiction covers tremendous ground.
She's very much a protofeminist in a lot of ways, she didn't feel like raising a family, and constructed a philosophy where she didn't have to.
Interestingly, it was one that allied itself with the right. She seems to be the rarer type of masculine woman who tends to ally with men instead of trying to oppose them. (A later example might be Camille Paglia.)
"Protofeminist" seems an odd term to apply to Rand, given that feminism as a movement had already existed for several decades before she was born.
Proto-2nd wave? There's a lot of self-determination stuff in there, though she wound up on the other side politically. It just goes to show that while personality does correlate with politics, that correlation is not absolute, and some 'masculine' women may be conservative.
Ayn Rand did not provide an epistemological foundation for capitalism. Her system was a mess and led to dogmatism—and I’m not just referring to her bad behavior. When you are a justificationist (explained in link below), you will be predisposed towards dogmatism even if you behave extremely well. https://open.substack.com/pub/jclester/p/critical-rationalism?r=b5zww&utm_medium=ios
She wrote extensively on the epistemological foundations of her philosophy and capitalism
Writing extensively on the epistemological foundations of capitalism does not mean she was successful. She may have made some good arguments in favor of capitalism but justificationism is not logically possible (see the linked article above).
Then why would you consider the lack of an epistemological foundation an issue, if one can’t be given anyway?
I’m simply rebutting the claim that she provided an epistemological foundation. That’s a logical impossibility. Objectivism is a philosophical dead end. At best, Rand converted some intelligent people to the view that entrepreneurs and capitalism are essential to prosperity but this could have been done without the albatross of Objectivism/virtue of selfishness. Hanania is himself a justificationist, so he doesn’t see her failure in that regard (even if he rejects Objectivism). No doubt he sees her as “EHC”, but she embodies the cultish side of EHC. He thinks white advocates are “unhealthy” but, ironically, Rand and many of her followers were unhealthy.
I don’t think you’re really thinking this through
Please point out my errors.
In the opening paragraph of the article You equate axioms wish dogmatism, but that’s clearly an arbitrary assertion that can be dismissed out of hand. Dogma is the belief in a proposition with insufficient evidence, you don’t appear to allow for the idea of a non-dogmatic axiom, ie an axiom that can be validated empirically. Given that this failing is in your opening paragraph and that this very issue is covered in the Objectivist literature, (specifically in the book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff) this strongly suggests to me that you’re unfamiliar with Ayn Rand’s epistemology.
Let me guess, you reject principles in principle and equivocate between principle and dogma - because you don't know the difference.
You don’t need to guess. Read the article I attached.
I have read a lot about Rands life and seen video of her clearly drugged up and not happy, so I find this statement quite strange.
" I believe if you adopt Ayn Rand’s philosophy, you will both be happier and have generally correct political and moral views."
Do you really think she was a happy woman who lived a good life?
I think if you use the bits about self-determination and not being a victim that will be helpful for a lot of people, particularly young men these days who get a lot of hostile propaganda about how awful they are. I think Ayn Rand is a good counter to woke misandry. I don't think a lot of the more extreme views work--life is a lot about ass-kissing the right people, for instance.
Thanks for your response. I think it is a good thing to not be a victim for sure. There are many philosophies that offer ways of thinking that help us humans, male or female (or whatever creative alternatives some of us come up with just to defy the reality that some of us see) and I think that Ayn Rand's take on the way we should live and the values we should have are lacking in common-sense.
I have raised 3 boys, in their 40's and 50's now and I have a grandson 7 years old. These men and boys are not and never did be irritated by the 'hostile propaganda' that you refer to. They understood that this 'propaganda' and the creation of the toxic masculinity trope is a reality. Their father was a toxic male, a sad old alcoholic now with no contact with his sons. It happens. Men are more violent than women. Deal with it.
There are toxic women of course. Is it necessary to say this? But we are less violent.
Male aggression needs to be dealt with during childhood and adolescence. My men/boys understand that it is not all men that are toxic and men who are toxic, it is because they were badly raised and encouraged to believe women are the enemy and out to get them or something.
As others have noted in the comments, Rand has nothing to say about how a family should treat each other and is wrong, the foundation of human achievement is cooperation and altruism not selfishness.
If altruism wasn't fundamental to life, women would not risk their bodies and lives to grow another human with all the sacrifices to one's individuality selfish desires etc, that need to be made during pregnancy when we are feeding a separate life and then, what is breastfeeding but altruism writ large?
And you see, we women are choosing not to give up our freedom, our individuality, our right to choose and we are choosing not to make babies. That's where selfishness gets us.
"If altruism wasn't fundamental to life, women would not risk their bodies and lives to grow another human with all the sacrifices to one's individuality selfish desires etc, that need to be made during pregnancy when we are feeding a separate life and then, what is breastfeeding but altruism writ large?"
My understanding is that having a baby can be rationally a selfish decision. You're willing to "sacrifice" your body, take-on the risks of pregnancy, and everything else because bringing a new life into this world AND raising a great human being is valuable to you. Therefore you're not doing it out of altruism or merely social pressures or due to the patriarchy.
In the same vein, if a woman is opting not to have a baby because she values her body, or her career more than being a full-time mom, then that is also OK. But again, it would have to be a rationally selfish decision to purse these paths, and not a decision made because you're following what your childless peers are doing.
So when do you think that getting pregnant was a choice for women? Perhaps some women in the past, before the contraceptive pill, had some secret way of not getting pregant but I think the idea of a woman rationally weighing up the pros and cons of having a child is a very modern idea.
But it is happening, in my extended family there are young couples who are choosing not to have children mainly because climate change. And they can choose.
But as I remember it, in the recent past all there was for women pre pill, was to just say no and keep ones legs together, but rape and that masculine energy to dominate, especially when encouraged by a belief that patriachy is a good thing, leads men to assume they have a right to use a woman's body to make themselves feel powerful.
Women never have had, for most of life on earth, a real choice not to ruin our bodies, (it used to be said that every pregnancy costs a tooth), and at the worst risk death. Childbirth is a risky business and from the stats, the US has much higher rates of infant mortality during childbirth than we do here in Australia even with all our marvellous modern nedicine.
It's not men's fault of course, it's our biology. Nature isn't fair but it is up to us to use our human nature and intelligence to make to make it as fair as possible and provide justice for all.
The fact is that creating life and nurturing it, does require altruism, altruism as a fundamental aspect of life, not altruism as a conscious choice to engage in an exchange.
Altruism is much deeper than that. My point is that it is so fundamental to our biology, that we will never be happy without acknowledging that we are biological beings, essentially irrational because we are animals, we need a society because reciprocity benefits everone, we are not individuals who can go through life making the best decisions through being sekfish.
Poor Ayn Rand was such an unhappy woman. If you have seen the interview of her, it is obvious the the woman needed therapy and rehab for her drug abuse.
The abuse that went on in the inner circle of her cult, as detailed by some of the desciples who escaped is quite appalling and must rule her out as offering a good philosophy to live by.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, thanks for replying. I'm on my phone and it's not that easy to reply on such a small screen and I can't see your reply so not sure now that what I have said is appropriate.
I'd guess pre-enlightenment, most everything sucked and you did what the church or society told you to do, regardless of sex. I'm sure while death from pregrnancies were quite high, more men died from war, daily riguors of their occupation, and just natural accidents. I believe Rand has argued that post-englightenment, people have fewer and fewer excuses to conform to tradition, the "patriarchy", etc... because we can all now use our minds and for most of the western world, we had the freedom to pursue many of our self-interests.
As the same time, I can imagine in a pre-enlightement world that having kids was probably the best choice for most women to survive in a cruel and challenging world without that many good options (for all humans). It's not like they could have said, "I dont' want to have any kids because I need to challenge Gallileo...". Most men didn't have many good options, either.
Not having children because of concerns for climate change would be considered an irrational decsion because in almost every plausible scenario, it has no impact to the future child, the society, or themselves. And thus they may be lying to themselves about it. Rather, it would be rational to say, "we're not having any kids because we're concerned about climate change, and we both want to dedicate all our lives to fight it 24/7. We think this is more important purpose for us, than to raise kids in the uncertain future." But if they're not having kids, yet still fly around the world on vacations, consume a lot of great Australian beef, etc... then their expressed values are not in alignment with their actions (not judging them sepecifically, btw).
While the birth stats have been refuted to not be accurate to use when comparing between countries, I agree there is still considerable risk for women. My wife had 4 kids naturally, and the last two was delivered by just me and her at our home. We're not religious. We knew there was risks, but we balanced them with the benefits of the process. We selfishly chose this path. There is the self esteem from her to know she can do it without a medical professional and outside a hospital, doing something that 99% of the western world doesn't do. There's also the excitement of raising kids, the ablity to problem-solve when challenges arise, the potential to meet other like-minded parents, future in-laws, etc...
Altruism is not such an obvious ingredient to me to raise and nurture kids. However, I would 100% admit that I'm not always consistent and I could also by lying to myself (perhaps like in this reply) that I'm truly a rationally selfish Dad!
Seymour you write,
"I believe Rand has argued that post-englightenment, people have fewer and fewer excuses to conform to tradition, the "patriarchy", etc... because we can all now use our minds and for most of the western world, we had the freedom to pursue many of our self-interests."
But this is nonsense. There really is no evidence that humans male or female or whatever can think fully rationally. You do undertstand that don't you? Prior to wokeness, this idea of fully rational human brains has been totally and comprehensively debunked.
Paricularly in economic theory, it is the case that more and more the assumed rationality of human choices that underps economic theories is shown to not work because humans are not rational. We might think we are making rational decisions but we can't first because we don't know the future, these days anyway and ssecond because we just do not have the mental capacity to take into account all the relevant information or even recognise when something is relevant to the choice we are making.
You know, I am old (did I say that already) and my father, back in the day a long time ago said that both socialism and free market capitalism would both work if it wasn't for human nature, and human irrationality. So again this is not a woke idea.
But what is our nature? Evolutionary psychology is still in its infancy and we can't make many definite statements that humans are rational and can always make good decisions in the face of all the results from psychology research that shows we are not at heart or mind, rational thinkers.
And this research is not woke. There is a limit to our ability to take into account all the information that we need to make a rational fully informed decisions. Even genises like Musk do not know everything they need to make the best decision. That is clear in his history.
I am not saying that altruism is an emotion or a factor in individual decision making. I am saying that it exists because there has to be a balance in nature of which we are a part. Altruism as a concept that drives evolution just as much as selfishness does.
It is encoded in the female thinking process because there has to be balance in nature, between the impulse to selfishness and the impulse to care for others. We did not evolve as individuals but as families and it words best if there is balance.
Like the yin yang concept in Chinese philosophy. You do know the east Asians are smarter than us whites so we should look to their thinking for some answers that we might have missed.
Anyway good for you to be birthing your own babies. I had four kids too, 3 boys and a girl, and 3 grandkids. And back in the days when I was a full on hippie, with all the free love and everything, we birthed our own babies too. Well some did, there was one time when the woman lost confidence and had to be taken to a hospital. Who knows how it would have turned out but it was very good to have the free health care system that we have here in Australia.
As you say, "But if they're not having kids, yet still fly around the world on vacations, consume a lot of great Australian beef, etc... then their expressed values are not in alignment with their actions (not judging them sepecifically, btw)."
I don't think there is anything wrong with judging the people who selfishly fly round the world at the same time as supporting climate change. The hypocrisy is appalling. All this ugly consumption is so stupid. I don't know where to start to express my horror.
The idea is that it will be a shitty life for any kids that have to grow up in the warming planet where nothing will be predictable no matter how rational one is. My offspring who have had kids are wondering how to help them survive the coming instability and unpredictability. jSome say learn coding but what if the internet goes???
Anyway, so good to talk like this eh? I'm one of those diagnosed late in life as being on the spectrum so I apparently don't have social skills and I know despite my very high IQ (its been tested by resgistered neuropsych) that I make very bad decisions, and do not understand what others are saying to me, so forgive any rudeness you might see in my writing. I do appreciate the opportunity to say what I think without any censorship and discuss the crap that is happening in our world.
I would actually have agreed with you more 20 or 30 years ago, when I was growing up. I thought her whole hypercapitalist thing was kind of dumb and she preached a form of self-reliance and ignoring other people that was ultimately self-destructive. I agree with you and don't think Ayn Rand is a good *complete* guide to life. Hanania's at the 90th percentile of Rand appreciators...I'm at the 60th or 70th. She has good points, and is very different from most of the writers that get celebrated. That doesn't make her a sage in the manner of, say, Jesus, Buddha, or Confucius.
Nowadays I think men are encouraged to be too passive and feminine and can wind up mocked on the Internet and lose their jobs if they ask the wrong girl out. I admit I got a lot of liberal, feminist values growing up, and was seen as too 'weak' by women until I decided to act a little more confident and 'toxic'...I was too far to the feminine pole and had to move back toward the masculine. It's a spectrum, everything is.
There's also a general culture of victimology I think Rand can be a corrective to. The Stoic philosophers are probably better I think, but our society does require a certain degree of selfishness. I don't think a young Japanese kid would have much use for her, for instance.
I think human achievement is a mix of cooperation and selfishness. The Greeks talked about the golden mean, the Chinese about yin and yang. Usually the optimal choice is some kind of balance between two extremes, and where exactly that balance is struck depends on the time and place.
So I agree with you, altruism is fundamental to life...and men of the old school would sacrifice too for their families, working difficult and odious jobs to provide money. Still, pure altruism leads you to be exploited by the unscrupulous...peaceful cultures are conquered by violent ones, nice people fall for sociopaths. Capitalism produces more wealth than communism...though without a welfare state and redistribution it rapidly becomes unstable due to excess inequality as we saw in the 20s and 30s (and are seeing now again).
As for women choosing not to make babies...doesn't bother me, I dodged the childrearing draft myself so am in no position to judge. :) You hear one conservative opinion and attribute to me the full suite of opinions of a conservative...which I guess is statistically likely, but is not in fact the case here.
Richard,
Thank you for discussing Ayn Rand and her work with Alex. First, Alex is a genius in his own right, and his work on energy and defending the use of fossil fuels will place him way above many so-called climate intellectuals (when history measures such thinkers) if Western Civilization survives (and the jury is out on this state of affairs). Second, I really appreciate your work and your evident willingness to challenge your own ideas in various domains. I do think you will grow to appreciate Rand’s philosophy even more as you continue to read more of her work (but rereading it is the real master key to a fuller understanding of Objectivism). Finally, I think that anyone, who has actually read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and who doesn’t come away with at least some realization that Rand has identified a new compelling theory of moral philosophy, is either a fraud (someone who either hasn’t read those books and/or is unable to understand them) or their own brand of ideologue.
If you’re looking for suggestions on people to interview might I recommend C. Bradley Thompson. I think you would really appreciate his writing on American history specifically on the American Revolution and the importance of their moral philosophy (best represented in the Declaration of Independence).
Never realized Alex Epstein was a bjj guy until now. V cool.
I'm probably at the 60th or 70th percentile of Rand appreciation--I like her more than most people on the left do, and more than Christian conservatives. There are certainly good things about Rand. The whole self-determination thing's good for a certain sort of highly agentic young man (and the occasional woman), and capitalism does do a lot of things right. She's one of the very few people to write a non-leftist novel of ideas, and the only one I know that's still read today.
However, her philosophy doesn't seem to have done her much good long-term (though she did get to live in New York and do polyamory in the 50s, which is something), and it didn't really pass on. Libertarianism never catches on, because as strictly constructed (and Rand was very much for strict construction-Objectivism's even more stringent) it doesn't satisfy enough of the population that wants some kind of a welfare state to ameliorate risk. The watered down 'socially liberal, economically conservative' neoliberal synthesis was pretty prosperous and lasted from about 1989-2008, which isn't terrible as ideological regimes go.
I'm still glad libertarians are around--the power of the government to deal out force with public approbation is a terrible one, and libertarians are one of the few groups to criticize government overreach of the left and right.
Very interesting discussion. Alex talks a lot about disliking the idea of sacrifice as moral but I'm not entirely clear if thinks that we should never sacrifice for others without self interest or if he just wants to knock it down a peg to point out that you can have lots of moral behavior that doesn't actually involve sacrifice. He says at one point that he gives to charity so I presume it is the latter, but the way he talks it sounds more like the former?
He also talks about selfishness a lot, but it seems like he is really talking about self-interest. The common use of the word selfishness is to describe when self-interest is taken to such an extreme that you are willing to hurt other people or degrade your own social capital. Why does he feel the need to not use the word "self-interest", is it that he actually doesn't believe that you can ever be too selfish? I'd love to hear his opinion about the morality of a company that arbitrarily raises the price of insulin because they have a government-enforced monopoly, or other situations where self-interest does seem to conflict with societal good.
Please, fewer fossil fuel shills, Richard.
Remarkable that anybody is defending a dirty 19th century technology at this point. The US is the Saudi Arabia of renewables, after all.