Posted on 09/05/2010 8:26:50 AM PDT by Mojave
In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted.
At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan. According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)
"A wonderful, free, light consciousness" born of the utter absence of any understanding of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people." Obviously, Ayn Rand was most favorably impressed with Mr. Hickman. He was, at least at that stage of Rand's life, her kind of man.
So the question is, who exactly was he?
William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes.
You see, Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer.
Other than that, he was probably a swell guy.
(Excerpt) Read more at michaelprescott.net ...
A. William Edward Hickman.
Obama, the closet Objectivist. Nobody embraces self-worship and disdain for others better than he does.
Later she realized the importance of non-initiation of force against the innocent and only for self defense against force, and the necessity of non violation of natural rights.
Covered:
No doubt defenders of Ayn Rand, and there are still a few left, would reply that the journal entry in question was written when she was only in her early twenties and still under the spell of Nietzsche, that as her thinking developed she discarded such Nietzschean elements and evolved a more rational outlook, and that the mature Rand should not be judged by the mistakes of her youth. And this might be a perfectly reasonable position to take. Unquestionably Rand's outlook did change, and her point of view did become at least somewhat less hostile to what the average, normal person would regard as healthy values.But before we assume that her admiration of Mr. Hickman was merely a quirk of her salad days, let's consider a few other quotes from Ayn Rand cited in Scott Ryan's book. In her early notes for The Fountainhead: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" (Journals, p. 78.)
Of The Fountainhead's hero, Howard Roark: He "has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world." (Journals, p. 93.)
Pretty thin gruel. Someone who disliked Ayn Rand finds another reason to dislike her.
“the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should.”
In other words, a sociopath.
Now here are some of Rand's notes on the fictional hero she was developing, with Hickman (or what he "suggested") as a model:"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' "
You need help. Seek it.
Average people need the help of Randian Supermen like you? No thanks.
Before we get to the meat of this statement, let us pause to consider Rand's claim that average members of the public are "beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives." Worse sins and crimes and kidnapping, murdering, and mutilating a helpless little girl? If Rand honestly believed that the average American had worse skeletons than that in his closet, then her opinion of "the average man" is even lower than I had suspected.We get an idea of the "sins and crimes" of ordinary people when Rand discusses the jury in the case: "Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?"
The entire piece is articulate, persuasive, and well written. So why does a good writer like Michael Prescott waste his manifest talent on serial killer stories?
In the first place you're not average. In the second place I was referring to professional help in the field of Psychiatry. You're demonstrating an unhealthy obssession. It can be treated.
The first step, however, is to admit that you need it.
Rand never really shook the influence of Nietzsche; Aristotle and Nietzsche.
Yes, isn't it? This whole thing seems to sit astraddle a plausibility gap. Wish I had more time to dig into this.
Backwards. I'm don't share your unhealthy obsession for her "philosophy" of selfishness.
"Objectivists" are invariably second rate minds unwilling to accept their own limitations. Driven by a need to imagine themselves superior to average Americans, they'll even embrace the sick rantings of a serial killer's groupie.
To the very limited extent she could even understand him
Psychiatrists call what you're doing "projection". Help is available for it.
The irony is thick as cold molasses. I don't pretend to stand above society's laws and values. Never have.
That's your crutch.
Small minds mock that which they are unable to understand. It's not your fault really. You're is stuck with the intellect you were issued by the Almighty. I'm sure He had a reason for doing so.
You value laws which say that a child can have it's brains sucked out of it's head right up until it's birth. I don't.
You value laws which say that my money honestly earned can be taken in whatever amount and for whatever purpose 51% of the population says is just. I don't.
You value laws which say that I can be disarmed on the whim of local politicians. I don't.
Now tell me again, which one of us is the immoral one?
That explains your hatred of society's values.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.