Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:07 To
Speaker 1 00:00:08 Is Scott is gonna join us, sharing
Speaker 0 00:00:10 The room, social, join us, please. Social media. That would be great. It started, My name is Calls, Calls me dad. So I go by my and the ceo, the outside we are the ideas of Ironman, we have of, uh, philosophy and, um, Jason Hill called you know person. And he's gonna talk to I really as more of a student seeing, uh, her early appreciation of elements of, um, her ation of it.
Speaker 1 00:01:21 So, Jennifer, I can't hear you. Some, you're breaking up. Um, can you hear me?
Speaker 0 00:01:32 Is that better?
Speaker 1 00:01:33 Can you hear me, Jennifer? Yep,
Speaker 0 00:01:34 I hear you.
Speaker 1 00:01:36 Okay. Um, I just changed rooms. Um, okay. Okay. Yeah, I can hear you now.
Speaker 0 00:01:44 All right. It might have been, I was on, um, uh, my headset, so that might have been the issue.
Speaker 1 00:01:50 So
Speaker 0 00:01:51 Clearing now.
Speaker 1 00:01:53 All right. Okay. So should we start?
Speaker 0 00:01:57 Let's do,
Speaker 1 00:01:58 It's do it. Okay. So I, I started out, um, real enthusiastically, um, wanting to do a comparison between, I realized, you know, random niche is just really, really broad. Um, so I wanted to do a comparison between not their metaphysics or their, um, epistemology. I realized that Nche doesn't really have much of an, uh, a metaphysics, really, when you unpack it. Um, I reread Steven's book on Nche and the Nazis last night. And so I decided, um, to do, I was gonna do a comparison between their no, their sense of life. Like what is the sense of life of Iron Rans versus Nitches sense of life. And, you know, I've, I, Iran's the Romantic Manifesto was the first book I read at 19 years old of, of, of her books. I actually started with a nonfiction, the romantic manifest I started with, and then I went to the fountain head, and then I went to Atlas Shrugged.
Speaker 1 00:03:05 And I've read that book so many times, and I really got into the notion of the sense of life last night. And I hit a dead end when it came with comparing her sense of life with niches, because I found some problems with the notion of the sense of life that just, I couldn't, I couldn't move beyond the problems I found. So I wanted to just really talk about iron Rand's sense of life. It's a rich, rich notion, and it's an extricable link to art. And, um, some of the problems that I ran into, um, for the first time, really, I mean, I guess I was reading it really, really critically since I had to give a, a talk on it. Um, I've never, I've taught a number of her books, almost every other book besides this one, The Romantic Manifesto in my classes. Um, so my thesis is, I'm, I'm gonna tell you what my thesis is gonna be, and then I'm gonna give a, a, a sort of like a 15 minute, um, breakdown of what I, what I find problematic and what has sort of stumped me.
Speaker 1 00:04:16 My thesis really is going to be that Rand I find in her discussion of her sense of life or the definition itself that she conflicts what I take to be codified emotional responses, feelings, um, about the world people events into what I think are really psychological states into metaphysical issues. So there is nothing that is necess that necessarily hears in the nature of reality about our emotional states or feelings that would warrant calling them metaphysical value judgments. I, I think they are psychological reports. That's gonna be my thesis. And I, I never really thought about it that way. I sort of just had read Rand's notion of sense of life, um, on critically until I started thinking about comparing her notion of a sense of life with what I was trying to reconstruct out of niche's, corpus of a sense of life, his notion of the heroic individualism.
Speaker 1 00:05:33 So, lemme just read again, my, my thesis is gonna be, cuz I want it to be very clear, is that I think Rand Conflates codified emotional responses, feelings about the world, people and events into what are I think psychological states into metaphysical, um, issues. I don't, I don't think there's anything that's, that necessarily hears in the nature of reality about, or emotional states that would warrant calling them metaphysical value judgements. I think they are psychological reports. So I think Rand turns what are nothing more than the psychological states and issues of psychology into issues of metaphysics. All right, so that's gonna be where I'm going to start. So she says, a sense of life is a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously appraisal of man and of existence. And that it sets the nature of a man's emotional response and the essence of his, of his character.
Speaker 1 00:06:40 No, the first issue that came to mind was I thought that what set the nature of emotional responses was the conscious thinking one has done or one has failed to do. So I think that when you use a term appraisal, um, that a sense of life constitutes a subconscious appraisal. Um, I don't know, As an analytically trained philosopher, I'm gonna have a problem here because appraisal by its nature presupposes conscious judgment. I don't know that you can subconsciously appraisal anything. Appraisal is a kind of concept that presupposes a conscious state of mind according to well defined standards against the backdrop of say, what constitutes, you know, bravery or excellence or certain kind of virtue or particular phenomenon and well-established criteria for all the ways of falling short of that particular concept. Like all the ways of falling short of excellence or bravery. I don't know that there would be an unconscious subconscious who have app praising bravery or excellence.
Speaker 1 00:07:54 Um, so that's, that's one of the first markers of, uh, a way in which I think a definition of sense of life by, by introducing a sort of subconscious appraisal of man and his existence is problematic for me. Um, so the act of appraising any phenomenon can neither be subconscious nor mediated by I think also emotions. Um, so she says a sense of life is a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics and emotional subconscious appraisal of men and is exist existence. So I don't think, again, that the act of appraising any phenomenon can be a subconscious nor mediated by emotions, which Rand says are not tools of cognition, right? They're, they're, they're just there, there are feelings, but they're not tools of cognition, um, but is determined by man's cognitive faculty, his mind. So I wanna turn to page 1 41, and I'll just read it to you very briefly.
Speaker 1 00:09:09 Um, of the iron ran lexicon, which, um, is taken the quote, the quote that I'm gonna read, I think is taken from, um, the objectives in which he says that, uh, man is born with emotional mechanism just as he's born with a cognitive mechanism. But at birth, both are tabular raa, it is man's cognitive faculty is mind that determines the content of both. And man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has the program and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses. But since the work of man's mind is not automatic, its values like all its premises are the product either with thinking or was the visions, man chooses his values by conscious process of thought or accept them by default, by conscious associations on faith, on someone's else's authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind intuition. All right?
Speaker 1 00:10:16 So a conscious process of thought, um, or we accept them by default, by some sort of subconscious association. So a sense of life is, is formed by a process of emotional generalizations, she says in the romantic manifesto. And it's a subconscious counterpart of a process of abstraction, which involves classifying and integrating. So one of the problems I had with this, and I thought really long and hard about this is I'm not sure that a sense of life, which is formed by a process of emotional generalizations, a subconscious counterpart of a, a process of abstraction, that the man can do all these things and classify and integrate subconsciously now in introduction to objectives, epistemology, where we do see that a process of automatization occurs after consciously identifying certain reference in reality, right? So I can identify a table, a chair, um, an o ottoman and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1 00:11:33 These are, these are actual reference. And then I can form the abstraction furniture. And the abstraction is an, it's an abstraction because it's, it's something that actually doesn't exist in reality. It's a, it's far, it's, it's, it's, uh, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's based on a concept that the reference that I perceive in reality, and it's, it's far removed from my conscious, my perceptive awareness. So the concept furniture is not something I can ostensibly point to. I'd have to point to all the different reference in reality, like table chair and so on and so forth. So, I'm not sure that a sense of life is something that can be formed by this process of classifying an integration. Um, if it's being done in a kind of, in this kind of by means of this kind of emotional generalization in a subconscious way that she articulates, I'd like us to discuss that.
Speaker 1 00:12:38 Um, so that's one other problem I had. And what exactly is the nature of a subconscious metaphysics, right, or to subconsciously hold a metaphysics? It's, I think that's just as problematic as saying we can hold a subconscious morality when morality clearly is a set of clearly defined and held principles, that regular conduct among other things, and guide the choice of, of one's actions, um, that direct one actions and, and guide the choice of one's values. So what ran here calls an unconscious metaphysics, I think needs a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for holding for what constitutes holding a metaphysics or metaphysical view. So a subconscious metaphysics seems just as vague or conceptually vague as subconscious epistemology or subconscious politics. And what Rand describes as preconceptual or subconscious method metaphysics is in this sense a loosely incorrect set of emotional experiences, an attitude and orientation that one develops towards a particular phenomenon or phenomena.
Speaker 1 00:13:58 And again, it seems to me that to codify these associated feelings into anything that could resemble a metaphysics is really playing loosely with the term metaphysics, right? So, or again, an emotional attitude or a psychologically set of codified experiences to which one has experienced, um, is just that it's, it's, it's a set of emotion. It's a set of psychological states. I wouldn't call it metaphysics. Um, and also as importantly, Rand says that the key concept informing a sense of life is a concept important. Now, she says a couple of things that have me thinking, um, that she's speaking a little bit elliptically here. Um, she says the concept important is not a valued judgment that can be un that can be, that can be answered subconsciously or implicitly.
Speaker 1 00:15:12 She says valued judgements are unconsciously held and they belong to the realm of values, but at the same time, they are different from moral values. I don't know if that's an equivocation, but I don't, I would say that values are inseparably tied to morality. So there are two things that are going on here that I find problematic folks. One is, uh, if important or important is a valued judgment, and that is a species of morality, not metaphysics. Um, but she calls, she says that it is a metaphysical issue. She in fact states that important is a medical, is a metaphysical issue, that it's a valued judgment also that belongs to the realm of values, but is different from moral values. And I say that I'm having a little bit of a problem with that because values are inseparable from the realm of morality. Um, and again, I'm not sure why the term meta important would belong to, would be a metaphysical issue as opposed to as you write this says be, um, uh, uh, belong to the realm of values.
Speaker 1 00:16:47 So that sort of slippage between that conflation and that slippage between me, a metaphysical, metaphysical issue and the realm of values seems very, very problematic to me. Um, I could go on and on. I have like seven pages here, which I'm not gonna read because the last time I talked about Rand it was very, very technical. And, um, I would rather just leave it there. And, uh, because I think those two issues are very, very important. Um, one is the, again, the conflation of, um, psychological states, or what I'm calling psychological states into metaphysical issue, into a meta, meta metaphysical, an issue of metaphysics when they belong the realm of psychology. So ran is transplanting psychological states and calling them metaphysical states. And then the second issue of conflating that, which is important as a metaphysical issue, while simultaneously calling it a valued judgment that belongs to the realm of values, but saying that it's different from moral values. Um, so I think the whole issue, I think the whole issue of the sense of life gets a little bit murky here, uh, from a definitional standpoint.
Speaker 0 00:18:20 Well, as always, you bring up provocative points, and we are very fortunate tonight to have not just Professor Hill, but we have other members of our faculty, uh, Steven Hicks who's in the room, and, uh, has written a book about, uh, Nche and the Nazis, and of course, our founder David Kelly and Professor Richard Salzman. So I'm gonna defer,
Speaker 1 00:18:44 And can I say that you should all get Steven, I, Steven, I rewrite your book from cover to cover last night, and it was just fabulous.
Speaker 0 00:18:50 I've sent him an invite to come up on stage, but he might be, who knows out at dinner or something. So I'll see if he changes his mind. But, uh, David or Richard, did you have some thoughts or questions for Jason?
Speaker 2 00:19:04 Yeah, I, I, I did. And I, I'll try to be brief, but, uh, Jason, thank you so much. This whole issue of sense of life is something I've never fully understood is aesthetics and the psychology relevant to it, um, is not my strong point. So I'm, I find your discussion very interesting. But, uh, let me just make a brief, brief comment about, uh, year two central points. One is, um, the distinction between psychological states versus brand's description of, uh, implicit metaphysics, psychological states. I, I hear what you're saying, but the psychological states. Um, but at the same time, at physiologically, any, any cognitive state, any conscious state has some content in reality. And I think what rain is getting at is the, uh, those psychological states are about, uh, reality as such, even if implicit, and we do have implicit, um, premises that, I mean, one of the, the functions to psychotherapy is to uncover assumptions we've made that we don't know about, um, that underlie certain emotions.
Speaker 2 00:20:30 Um, I don't know how, I don't know how exactly this applies to, uh, the issue of these, um, sense of life issues, so I'll just leave it there. But it, I, I do think that the issue of the, uh, describing something as a psychological state is valuable in its own right. But at, at the end of the day, the psychological state has to be about something. So that's one thing, and, and that's something you know, is in reality truly or falsely grasped as it may be. The other thing about the importance and values, um, you know, i, I technic you what you say, and I think there's, there are some issues about rand in, in the sense of this. My, my sense overall has been this for a long time, and rand over overemphasized or, um, exaggerated the control of one's conscious mind over one's subconscious, including emotions, but be that as it may, um, there are, uh, there are normative judgements that are not ethical, per se.
Speaker 2 00:21:49 There's aesthetic judgments about the quality of an artwork. Um, and there are, uh, and I take it that judge judgements of importance are, are normative, yes, but in the sense of this, this is significant. I must pay attention to this, um, as opposed to the o many other things that could pay attention to, that's a normative judgment. It may, may or may not be ethical, but I'm just suggesting that the realm of the normative, um, is broader than the realm of the ethical. So I'll leave it there, um, and, uh, be interested in your follow up in the other discussions. Thanks.
Speaker 1 00:22:39 Right. I mean, I do think that the last, just, just to comment on your last statement, that that's true, but I do think that when the concept of important is introduced as belonging to the realm of values, that the realm of values, as I said, is inextricably and considerably tied to morality, that is, it's a species of morality. And you cannot talk about, I mean, she does say that not everything that is important has a moral upshot to it. Like, just like her, you know, so, so something can be important, like a bar of ice cream can be important to me, but that's a, well, non co contextually just simp more just simplest, you know, simp just speaking in a vague and non contextual manner. It's not, it's not really a moral issue, or it's not, It could be cuz I could suffer from diabetes, let's just say if I decided to dye my hair.
Speaker 1 00:23:46 That's just, that could be important to me for aesthetic reasons, but that's just not a very moral issue. Um, but when you import something like important being I import into the realm of, um, of values, and those values in some sense, um, are not outside the realm of moral neutral neutrality. Cuz when Ran is talking about a sense of life here, um, she's not talk, and especially in that chapter about, in those two chapters, philosophy and sense of life and art and sense of life, she is not, and this, and they're linked to the ideal man and so and so forth. This is not a discussion of morally neutral things that are important. These are things that are important, which have a moral upshot to them, them. So we're not talking about, um, important things that are of value to me, but which are outside the realm of moral, of, of, of morality. We're talking about things that do have a moral upshot to them. So, um, if she wanted to make that distinction, I, I don't, I think, I think she should have used something a different termin. I think the terminology should have been different, um,
Speaker 1 00:25:32 Because there's a superficial way of talking about values. And then there, which most people when they do talk about values, which are, she says values are that which we act again and are keep, which is an incomplete definition of values. I mean, in the objective ethics, she gives a much, much robust account of values that they're life enhancing, phenomenal, that all living species must pursue. So values in the rich context that she's discussing it, she's discussing them, are not separable from morality. And, um, so yeah.
Speaker 2 00:26:16 Jason, Jason, just a quick, quick comment. You know, Rand, in those essays you mentioned about sense of life, um, if she were writing purely as a psychologist, there would not be the, uh, unreachable attitude that a a benevolent sense of life is better, more human, the right one to have, rather than the, the, uh, uh, male sense of life. I mean, you just read the essays and, and the way she says it, if she were speaking purely as a psychologist and some, I think some objective, a psychologist would present it this way, it would just be, this is a fact. Human beings have these attitudes, you know, we can go on to talk, which are more helpful and more life supporting, but that's a value judgment. There's, there's a non value judgment here in analyzing the nature of the human mind. And so, anyway, uh, that's a short point. But, um, thanks. I, I know some of the others, uh, who are more conversant with this thing with, uh, this material. Um,
Speaker 0 00:27:36 Thanks David. Um, and, uh, Steven is driving, but he is listening Professor Hicks, and he approves of this discussion, Uh, so I'm sure we'll all get together later and be able to, um, explore further. Uh, I don't know, Richard, if you are driving or grading, but it's great to see you here.
Speaker 4 00:27:58 I'm neither driving nor grading. I'm sitting on my front porch listening to this most fascinating discussion. Jason, David, Jason, Three points. I'm overwhelmed by this analysis. I love it. I feel it. That's not a bad thing. I have had the same issue. I love the whole Iron Randa view of sense of life, but I like you have read it over and over again. And I'm impressed by the way that you read. That was the first thing you read and you've come back to reassess it. I wanna say one of the things I most love about the Atlas Society is that it has a place for reassessing and assessing Iron Rand because we love her, we love her philosophy, and therefore we're willing to say, what the heck? Why did you say that? What does that actually mean? And it's one of the things I love about you, Jason.
Speaker 4 00:29:01 My thought is same thing you brought up, and I'm looking at the Iron Rand lexicon, cuz that's the best way to get to it. It's subconscious, it's emotional. And yet we know, she said, you cannot use emotions as tools of cognition. And my particular interest in this as her view, that the American sense of life is saving us at a time when the philosophy is ruining us. Of course, she said that 50, 50, 40 years ago. And, and I think we would say today that the sense of life has eroded so much. But philosophically, Jason, I'm, I'm looking at the same passages you do. A sense of life is a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal. I feel the same way you do appraisal to me sounds conscious, not subconscious. And even though I like the idea, I'm not sure how she gets there or validates it.
Speaker 4 00:30:06 And then later in art, in a sense of life, again, I'm looking at the lexicons. So just go to the lexicon and put in sense of life. She says, quote, A sense of life is formed by a process of emotional generalization. Wow. Which may be described as a subconscious counterpart of a process of abstraction. I, I won't quote beyond that, but my first reaction to phrases like, wow, re how can that be? Um, there's a difference between conscious and subconscious. And I thought the objective, his view was whatever's in your subconscious came from your conscious, came from, derived from was derivative from what you saw firsthand, so to speak. So I think of the subconsciousness not secondhand in the way of, of that like a Peter Keating type thing, but, but what do we stalk our subconscious with the stuff that comes through our consciousness?
Speaker 4 00:31:16 And, uh, so I'm a little, unless I'm misinterpreting you, Jason, I'm a little disturbed about why she places such credence on this subconscious emotional power, when on the other hand she says, emotions are not tools of tools of cognition. And then the last thing I would say is, this is just as a promo, this is relying on Nathaniel Brandon, and I'm, I'm, I'm not in the business of promoting Nathaniel Brandon, but Nathaniel Brandon was a genius. And maybe partly he was a genius because he met Iron Rand, but I don't think she would've cut off with any of this stuff without having been influenced by Nathaniel Brandon. So I just wanna be on the record for saying for the Atlas Society, not like it's the official position. It's, I'm, I'm not saying it's the official position, but man, he was a genius and she knew he was a genius.
Speaker 4 00:32:13 And this stuff is a discussion. The stuff she's doing here is the discussion of the relationship between the conscious and the subconscious. And Jason, everything you said about, my gosh, I'd never heard this phrase before. The codification of the psychological into the meta. Wow, I've never heard that before. It's, it's, it's brilliant. It's, it's new. It's, I think it's new, but I just wanted to put a pitch in for okay, just because Iran disassociated from Nathaniel Brandon, let's not forget that he wrote a bunch of great stuff and influenced her. So that's a bit, that's a bit too much Jason, I know, but I'm curious as to your reaction to it now.
Speaker 1 00:32:59 Well, thanks, thanks a lot, Richard. Uh, um, I, I, I criticize my, my heroine, so I, I'm gonna try to save her also. I, I agree with everything that you're saying and, um, I'm gonna share your, your frustration here. Um, it's, maybe, maybe this is a question of which comes first, a chicken or the eggs, right? Maybe rand in some sense is speaking as if what happens when a sense of life already gets formed. And I'm thinking here on a, in a very innocuous passage on page 25 of chapter three, art and Sense of life, where she says, um, I'm gonna read a passage cuz I think it might, it, it might save, save the day. Where she says, um, the psycho epistemological process of communication between an artist and a view or reader goes as follows. The artist starts with broad abstraction, which she has to concretize to bring into reality by means of the appropriate particulars.
Speaker 1 00:34:07 The viewer perceives the particulars, integrates some grass abstraction from which they came, does compete in the circle. And here's the, here's the brilliant part of what she says. Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction. The viewing process resembles a process of induction. So maybe this whole thing of sense of life is, uh, is, is maybe she's, I'm sure quarterbacking, maybe she's, she's establishing the processes by which it's a heuristic device, rationally. Here's how a sense of life would have to come about in the way that if you, in the way that the way that concept concepts come about, that is explaining how a child would grasp the concept of furniture. It's not, and how it becomes certain concepts become automatized in our consciousness. Maybe she's just saying, this is the way a sense of life in an adult would properly become established.
Speaker 1 00:35:16 And everything that I've talked about in terms of generalizations and automatization and automatization and, um, it's already a procedure that would come about after a conscious awareness of certain processes have been brought to consciousness. I don't know if that's putting word in a dead woman's mouth. Um, but that's the only way that I could, I could think of, of sort of rescuing some of the, um, the analytic shortcomings that I, that I, that I identified where she said the creative process resembles a process of deduction. The viewing process resembles a process of induction. Um, where what we have to do probably is as viewers, um, take the position of the creator himself or herself, uh, in order to come up with a proper understanding of how a sense of life comes about. So maybe what she's, what she's giving is not really, um, a psychological account of how a sense of life really comes about organically in an individual, but how the proper, the proper methods for how one would establish something like a sense of life, if that makes sense.
Speaker 4 00:36:46 And Jason, I, I don't think, I don't think in all the years I've read this book that I've seen a take of like your take, which has made me think of it differently. So I thank you for that. But let me ask you something. Do you think it's derivative? When I think, when I think of growing up in the sixties, here's how, here's how I personalize it. This could be totally arbitrary. So throw it out if you don't want to. When I grew up in the sixties, what was my sense of life? I don't know. My parents were conservative Catholics. Fast forward to today, and I'm an atheist, subjectivist, what was my sense of life? I don't know. They, they told me, you can do anything, Work hard, study hard. Is that subconscious, is that. Then I went, by the time I read Iron Rand, I'm like, This is awesome.
Speaker 4 00:37:41 Who was this person iron ran? I thought he was a man. It is that subc is that salzman subconscious ready to, cuz that's really important in terms of changing the culture, right? If, if this is true, if earth theory is true, there are mil, there are millions of people, Jason, ready and willing and able. So I'll stop there. But you see what I'm saying is, is this a derivative in the sense of, unless there's a conscious family or group teaching that tells you you're important, go do something in life and you can, otherwise people will not have a good sense of life. I, I don't know, I'm, I'm still thinking about this.
Speaker 1 00:38:25 Well, she, she says that a sense of life can change, right? And, um, but she says, she says, uh, in philosophy and sense of life, a given person sense of life is hard to identify constant conceptually, because it is so hard to isolate. It is involved in everything about that person. It's very thought, emotion, action. His choice and value, the way he smiles Wow. The way he talks.
Speaker 4 00:38:48 Wow. He talks
Speaker 1 00:38:49 The way, his manner, his manner of moving. Yep. Um, right? Wow. So, and she says, and she says, introspectively, one sense of life is experienced as an absolute and an irre reducible pri irre reducible primary, because the thought of questioning, it never arises. We never think of, of questioning our sense of life. But a few pages earlier or later, she says, But we can change her sense of life when emotion and reason are brought into harmony when they're not occurring incongruously, but they're brought into harmony and there's no conflict between emotion. And she uced herself, <laugh>, she uced herself as evidence of such a person. Then, um, now that you have a change your sense of life, but, but as such, use yourself as someone in whom reason and emotion or in complete harmony. There was no conflict. Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:39:44 Yes.
Speaker 1 00:39:45 Then, then you, then you can, you can't change your sense of life. Imagine you, you can start walk walking more confidently. Wow. You can raise your voice. Yeah. Right? And, and you can raise your, you raise your head instead of walking with a bow head. Yeah. You can brace your shoulders back, like, like Dagney. Did you know when she first met ga?
Speaker 4 00:40:03 Oh, wonderful. Jace, that's wonderful. Yes. You know. Oh man. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Ja. Thank you. Ja. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0 00:40:14 All right. And I have, uh, put the link to the book that Jason, I think you were perusing, um, Steven's book on Nche and the Nazis. So if anybody wants to check that out, I'll also put it in the chat. And, uh, my dear friend John, have a question or thoughts on this.
Speaker 5 00:40:33 Hello. Thank you. Uh, this is kind of where Objectiveism meets subjectivism. I mean, uh, this is where, uh, the scientific method, or positivism or FALs principles of falsification, which involve a second party. This is someone has to make a judgment about to a con confirmation or a process of falsification that's not purely subjective. And so that's where the objectiveism aspect comes in. And then it's also the problem of how does someone who is trying to be objective self-examine their mind? It's, it's kind of like, uh, how do you know what you know? And, uh, that's why this is so difficult, Jason. It's because that's where, where Randy's treading is in this difficult area of where it's, it's a subjective analysis of what we want to make objective or, or to be objective. And then this also gets back to my hobby horse of sociobiology that is the origins of human consciousness in our biological history. And, uh, how that then interfaces with the, uh, the axiology of, of value formation and, um, life as the principle value. And then of course, where from the title of life. Um, then I guess my question is, uh, what happened to Nche <laugh>? Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:42:27 Yeah, Jason. So maybe a little bit on, um, how you would contrast, uh, this discussion with your review of Nche. Wanna unmute?
Speaker 1 00:42:44 Oh, I got, I have to unmute. Oh, yeah. Um, Nche and Rand clearly had a, a nche didn't use the word sense of life, and Nche didn't have a, uh, uh, uh, I don't think he had a metaphysics, a well worked out, but they did share a particular sense of life. And Steven has convinced me, I mean, I shouldn't have read, Steven gave me that book as a gift when he invited me to, to Rockdale a couple years ago. And I read it, and then I reread it last night. And, uh, they, they did, Steven convinced me that n nature really wasn't an individualist after all. I, you know, I was, I've always thought of Nche as the sort of quintessential individualist. And then, uh, listening to Rand's, uh, talk again last night for the umpteen time on the difference between Objectiveism and nature. And then Steven's book made me realize that Nche wasn't an individualist, but one doesn't have to have, one can still share a sense of life.
Speaker 1 00:43:44 So I think in their, in their pursuit of what Nche called the Uber man, or the Superior Man, or the Superman, or the Overman, and what ran called the ideal, there is a, there is a, there is a shared sense of life. Although, again, um, Stephen did point out that, and Rand pointed out that fia, these are biological inequalities where for rand, they're cultivated man is a being of self-made soul. But nevertheless, there is a sense in which their dis, their, their hatred of mediocrity, their hatred of the inheritance of secondhand values, and their glorification of an ideal nature would call it a superior person, an ideal person who has the right in some sense. Well, Rand wouldn't agree that, uh, she's explicitly states that one doesn't have the right as a superior person or, or an person of exceptional ability to live by different moral rules than an ordinary person, because we all share the same human nature.
Speaker 1 00:44:58 But in some sense that both of them are there. I say value manufacturers, that is the, they create values in the world. Um, and I don't think I'm wrong in saying that. Howard Rourke and John Ga, um, through the vehicle of Iron Rand, uh, he rand creates a new moral system, create values. Um, and so Nietzsche's Overman was the, the trans value of values and created new values. And in that sense, they did share and in other ways, to a similar sense of life as despises of mediocrity, despises of people who simply, unquestionably are our second, second handers, the title of what was Rans novel before she called it. The Fountain had, um, the beneficiaries of secondhand values who just mindlessly sort of esp them, but in both grand and needs, you see people questioning, transcending and creating values. Now in Ran, those values are suitable for man's nature as irrational being, Uh, I think, again, as Richard Point, um, Steven pointed out, uh, in Nietzche, they are good based on a kind of subjectivism, because I created them and ran, They're good because they conform to my nature as a rational human being.
Speaker 1 00:46:32 So the sense of life that I had thought was more widespread between Nietzche and Rand has sort of diminished, because one is a radical subjectivist and irrationalist, and one is the epi theosis of rationality and, um, objectivity, uh, one has, rand has a very strong belief in an objective reality that in exists independently of one's consciousness. And Nha sort of has the idea that the will again, is, this is not concerned to electron ncha, I promise you, but that the will is supersedes rationality. That the, that that rationality has a very minimal place to play in a person's life. It's the will. But also, Rand states that in Atla shrug in gold speech, that the will also has a role in, um, in promoting the good. Um, I, I'm, I'm sure it's the will conjoined with a rational principle. So, um, I did find, I do find a comment less know that I've sort of read other critics of, of nietzche a common thread in their sense of life, a glorification of the ideal of the ideal man, what Nitche would call the sp man, <inaudible>, what Ram would call the ideal man.
Speaker 1 00:48:02 Um, and a sense of life in terms of a not so veiled and rand, um, slightly veiled in Rand, not very veiled in, in, in nature, a contempt for the masses. Um, Rand sort of through the jury scene and in, in the fountain head, um, made up for this. But, but, but in Atlas shrugged, you see it more where the bitterness is, is more prevalent in, in that part of Rand's personality, an absolute contempt for, you know, for the housewife, for the house fraud, for the ordinary, for the ordinary man, for the common man. I don't think Rand, much contrary to what she said, had much respect for ordinary common, the folks next door, like Nche. So there's a common sense of life that's running through, through both of them, hatred of mediocrity, hatred of the ordinary person, a glorification of greatness, um, and exaltation of people with superior strengths and abilities and talents.
Speaker 0 00:49:09 Thank you, Jason. All right. We have 11 more minutes, and, uh, Norm has been waiting patiently, and so we'll get to his question. But if there's somebody else in the audience, um, please raise your hand. We might be able to squeeze you in. And also, I want to remind everybody who is here, you will have a spectacular opportunity to meet with all of our scholars in person a week from Thursday, October 6th in Malibu. Uh, we're gonna be having a day of panels on Objectiveism and various topics. And also then Jason will be, uh, speaking on the main stage at our gala, uh, with Camille Foster and Steven Hicks on a new vision for diversity. So, um, if you're in Southern California up for making a quick hop of a flight, hope you'll join us. Norm, do you wanna unmute yourself?
Speaker 6 00:50:02 I do. Thank you for hosting, Um, and thank you so much, uh, Professor Hill, um, incredibly, uh, stimulating and, uh, thought provoking. Please let me know if the audio is not okay. Um, so I don't know if I have a, a question as much as a, an attempt, uh, at an, and an attempt to, uh, an attempt to understand, um, what we're talking about. Uh, again, I'm not, uh, trained as a philosopher, um, journalist, really. So what I often try to do is reduce ideas to their most, uh, digestible, um, forms. So let me know what you think. Uh, my, my sense of what we're, what a ran Iron Rand was trying to talk about with a sense of life in many ways, um, is covered by, uh, Freud's sense of the unconscious mind. It's, uh, all of those things that, uh, that we're bringing to the table pre cognitively.
Speaker 6 00:51:23 Although, uh, these, um, these forces, uh, this system influences our cogni, our cognition, and also, uh, influences our emotions. It's distinct from emotions, you know, it's a, it's a structure. Um, again, if we bring in young, then maybe some of it is, uh, universal, this concept of the, uh, collective unconscious. But, um, nevertheless, I feel like at least partially she's referring to these, um, these, uh, like we're saying, pre conscious or unconscious forces that are beyond our control. What's interesting about this, uh, is that nobody, no matter how brilliant is above the fray when it comes to, uh, say the resistance that is the, uh, the barrier between the unconscious and the conscious and the, or, or consciousness, and the, uh, the degree to which we are, um, controlled somewhat, not entirely, or influenced certainly by these unconscious forces. Um, a and I'll just say finally that, uh, I, I love the, uh, the ideas that you're sharing about the will, uh, and the, um, the ability to, uh, uh, to become a ma again, in the simplistic terms, master of one's own life. Um, you know, the, uh, uh, these imperatives really, uh, which I think, uh, Iron Rand and need to share, uh, to, uh, overcome, um, the mediocre and the, uh, the pedestrian. So if there's anything in there that <laugh> that can, that resonates with you, Professor Hill, I, I, I, I do enjoy, uh, you know, our, uh, interactions here on clubhouse. So let, I wonder if you have any thoughts about what I've shared, if this time, if I haven't gone on too long.
Speaker 1 00:53:36 No. Well, thanks. Thanks, Norm. I mean, Irad must be turning in her grave after almost 40 years of being dead. I'm just, so here you associate her with Freud, uh, whom I actually love Freud. I mean, I, I have a deep appreciation for, for what he has to offer, but, um, I, I can see where, uh, she, people would align her with falling into the trap, and she would consider maybe a trap falling into the, the, the, the ative unconscious template that Freud himself created. But I don't think Iron Rand would, would associate herself in, in those terms for either the simple, or one might say, depending on how deeply invested one is in the unconscious for the simple or simplistic reason that Rand actually thought that through a process of introspection, uh, really, really radical introspection, and also, but more importantly, norm by consciously changing one's premises.
Speaker 1 00:54:51 And she didn't think that it was, she distinctly said, That's why I don't think it's simplistic. She distinctly said, It's not an automatic process. It takes a lot of emotional re habituation, um, for this congruence between reason and the subconscious premises that are guiding behaviors to come into alignment. But ran is, uh, not a rationalist in the philosophical sense, but Ran is someone who did think that by conscious at changing your premises, your consciously held premises, your, your, your, your convictions, your through reason, not through faith, not through, um, fear of social ostracism or something like that, but you see in reason that you have fallen into error before you pass into corruption, that you change your convictions, That that's the first way of habituating, rehabilitating and habituating your emotions, Uh, because emotions are for her, um, the result of the thinking that you have done or you have failed to do For Freud, it's, that's garbage.
Speaker 1 00:56:02 I mean, for Freud, there's no such thing as just no. For Faud, it's all about, you know, trauma and going back to the scene of, I mean, you gotta be Barbara Streen and spent 20 years in psychoanalysis and, and, um, and being facetious here, but it's kind of true, right? Going back to the trauma and, and going back to some sort of, um, <affirmative> unconscious wound that some wound that your conscious that is so traumatic that your consciousness can't, um, bring to consciousness. And you, through talk therapy and through, um, what do they call it, um, free association and the bleeding of unconsciousness and this therapeutically safe space that Freud provides or this the analyst provides that you somehow bring to consciousness, um, that which was traumatic. And then the, the process of mourning can start. And then through mourning the heating process, I don't think ran had any truck with that kind of, what you would call nonsense, right?
Speaker 1 00:57:05 Um, it's a matter of sort of changing one's premises, thinking rationally, and, and it, it didn't happen automatically. It's not like, you know, you, you've fallen into error, and then it's kind like if you're toxically obese and you change your diet tomorrow, just don't shed 55 pounds overnight. I think she, and speaking analogously, I think is the same way. The mine has to be retrained and reprogramed. But, uh, it, it really for her is, and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone on stage, but I think for her it's fundamentally changing your premises that you see in reason is wrong. That's the beginning of altering, reprogramming, the subconscious forand. That's a very, very different approach from
Speaker 6 00:57:56 That. May I come back to you briefly one time? Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:57:59 Yeah, sure.
Speaker 6 00:58:00 All right. Okay, thanks. So I'll just try a little, uh, two minutes. Okay. I'll try to keep it under that. Thank you. Um, uh, and this is something that I got from, uh, Harold Bloom, who thought of, uh, Hamlet as sort of the original, uh, Freudian. So perhaps we can analogize the process of, uh, psychotherapy. In other words, just really the therapist remains quiet and the, uh, Alice, uh, speaks. Perhaps we can analogize that speaking with this self confrontation maybe. Um, so that, uh, um, you know, this is the process again. I think that these great thinkers are often all trying to wrestle with the same material, and they sort of, they put their individual stamp on it. Um, but I guess I'll, I'll, I'll stop right there, rather than use up to two minutes and, and see what you think about it. So maybe perhaps that, uh, confrontation with oneself maps onto, uh, Freud's, uh, um, aand, uh, laying there and, uh, just sort of speaking until one realizes what, uh, give a chance to answer. Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:59:14 Yeah, yeah, yeah. I, I think so. I just think that ran Freud, let me just say this real quickly. Just they had such radically different views of human nature, um, that they seem, um, they don't seem commensurable at all. I mean, Ran had a particular view of human nature of man, and Freud had a particular view of human nature. And the two are so radically different. They might have been striving for the same kind of outcome, but their procedures and their methodologies are so radically different, um, because of their commitment to a particular view of human nature that, that he had. But, but thank, thank
Speaker 7 00:59:49 You so much.
Speaker 1 00:59:49 Okay.
Speaker 0 00:59:51 Very, very good. Jason, this has just been an absolutely breathtaking, magnificent discussion. Thank you so much. Um, and I'm sorry,
Speaker 1 01:00:00 I'm sorry I didn't get to, I didn't, sorry I didn't get more tanha, but,
Speaker 0 01:00:04 Well, we might have to do another one. We might have to do another one. Thanks to John for getting us back on track. Uh, thanks to David and to, uh, Richard, and of course to Steven Hicks for helping to, um, inform this conversation. And I'm going to toss it to my colleague Scott, to let you guys know what's coming up next.
Speaker 7 01:00:26 Thank you. Tomorrow at 7:00 PM Eastern Rob Tru Zinski's gonna be talking the objective theory of the family. Uh, Wednesday, the Atlas Society asks Robert Zebra at 5:00 PM Eastern, uh, Thursday back here on Clubhouse at 4:00 PM Eastern the Atlas Society asks legendary investor Larry Abrams. That's gonna be a great one. And then Thursday at 8:00 PM Eastern, uh, Richard Salzman will be hosting another morals and Markets. Uh, and our gala is, uh, coming up in about, uh, 10 days in, um, Malibu, the links at the top. We hope to see you there. Thanks everyone.
Speaker 1 01:01:06 Thank you, everybody. Bye-bye.
Speaker 0 01:01:08 Thank you.
