Oooh, The Hazards of Love…
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm by MicheleForgive the long post. I’m not known for being particularly laconic.
Does idolizing someone require you to suspend rational thought? If independent, rational thought is at the core of your principles, can you really ever have an idol? Even if that idol inspired your radical libertarian way of thinking? Because at some point have to accept as a creed of sorts that humans are deeply flawed, overemotional, and irrational on the inside and many will disappoint you at all turns, especially the ones you put on a pedestal. How can they let you down if you didn’t hold them up in the first place? I assert that you probably hold someone in too much esteem because they have only revealed to you what they want you to see, and that you don’t truly know them. If you still feel deep affection for someone despite who they actually are, and you are in full possession of your senses, then that is called love/friendship and is a whole different issue.
I started thinking about this a few months ago while researching Ayn Rand. I was curious about what she thought about the infirm, the mentally ill, and the unborn. I discovered to my dismay that her belief in the inalienable rights of the human individual does not extend to those who still have an umbilical cord attached, no matter which trimester. She also believed that handicapped people shouldn’t be seen in public, especially by children. So there’s a hole in her belief that she would never ask another man to give up his life for her. And her belief that one should never initiate violence. But I guess that depends on your objectivist definition of “man”. If his existence is an undue burden for you , and he has no ability to rationalize, then he is not a human, and therefore he is dispensable.
While I was deciding whether I was going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I realized that my beliefs are not an all-or-nothing proposition. Independent thought is an a-la-carte menu and I don’t have to dine exclusively at the table of Ayn Rand. I can take from her table some very important ideas and accept that despite her brilliance she is still deeply flawed. I also am freed from idolizing her. Which is refreshing, because I dislike the idea of submitting myself to someone else’s ideas so completely.
All that being said, I found this video very interesting.
I think Penn’s problem is that he suspended his independent thought when it came to his idol. And when his idol disappointed him, it hit him like spit in the face. Literally. The sad thing is that Jillette is temporarily abandoning his own reason by thinking that perhaps his unhinged hero may have been correct . But it jars a person when he gets yelled at by someone dear to them, and most deeply flawed human beings want to make things right when their world gets a crack in it. Jillette can’t change Smothers, so instead he considers changing himself.
I just have to say, if I had to agree with someone on all core principles in order to even engage them in conversation, then my husband and I would never speak to one another.
I also believe Tommy Smothers is an ass, but I still like his yo yo tricks.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I sat through all 8 minutes of this yesterday and felt more confused about Penn’s rationale and what exactly he was needing in return. He came across as the son who disappointed the Father to the brink of being dis-owned. Get over it, already. Penn would still wrestle with his own conscience if he were to suddenly “change his opinion” because Tommy Smothers told him to sit at the Kiddie Table.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
[...] Meat Buffet » Oooh, The Hazards of Love…Posted 43 minutes [...]
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
So then, maybe it’s possible to quote a salient point from Mao without necessarily endorsing communism or all the bad stuff that Mao did in China?
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I am such a genius because I knew you’d bring that up, Mr. Funk. Ayn Rand was inconsistent about some major things, but her beliefs didn’t result in the deaths of 40 million. At the core of her belief set was human freedom, which is something you can’t say about Mao.
I choose not to even visit his table for ideas, great ones can be found elsewhere. Of course it’s possible to quote a salient point from Mao without endorsing what he did, but those kinds of quotes require the kind of lead-in that Dunn didn’t make. We can assume that she is against his kind of leadership, but with the kind of media control that’s being attempted by this administration, her idle words hold weight.
Ironic that her poor choice in famous figures to quote was in a speech about making good choices.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Like that you are searching. Real emotional freedom occurs when you change how you perceive things. Be they Ayn Rand, Mao, or the smart ass next door. I write about that. The cure is out there and much closer than you might think.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I’m no Rand scholar, but weren’t her opinions of the “infirm, the mentally ill, and the unborn,” such that a firm adherent (or adherents) to her philosophy who had the power to turn it into public policy would end up with a lot of blood on their hands? O.K., maybe not on their hands, but on their shoes, as it flowed past whilst they did nothing to help those with less capacity to help themselves. Certainly genocide can be committed by ordering the deaths of those who don’t fit into a given definition of “worthy,” but it can also be effected, perhaps with less efficiency, by simply standing by idly while others fail to make the cut for natural selection. Was Mao’s crime just in the implementation of his little red book, or was he culpable for having written it in the first place?
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
That’s a tough one Michele. I could definitely understand why Penn was upset because it was someone he respects and that it was face to face.
Your insights on whether to be selective in an idols beliefs are pretty keen. I can’t really add to your thoughts except that for me it is very subjective. It is also very superficial. Musicians and artist 95% of the time have views I find repulsive. But I give a pass to U2 and John Cusack. Green Day and Sean Penn, on the other hand, can kiss my ass.
Thelonius, point taken. I’m willing to bet that there was a certain shock value in contrasting Mao with Mother Theresa. That said, Marge Schott was rightly condemned for saying Hitler was messed up but had some good ideas. I guess polite society should just leave certain things unsaid.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Good post, One L.
The short answer is to have no heroes.
The long answer is to have respect for the things that people do that you admire but never lose enough faith to stand up for your own beliefs in the face of angry / misguided opposition.
Sometimes it means getting yelled at. In some people’s dreams they’d like to punch you in the face and you’re wise to know that going in.
But living in an echo chamber or compromising your principles out of fear that someone is going to get all bent out of shape over it is no way to live.
One day I’ll post part of a psychological profile I received that succinctly explains that as what I go for.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
I live in a Territory and the youtube won’t permit my access – it is irritating in that Penn has some spirit and it’s contagious. He did a wonderful essay when TSA was born and the rent-a-cops frisked him in the Las Vegas airport security. It was classic passive aggressive screwing with the authoritarians.
Anyway, Theloniuos Funk, no – I don’t believe Ayn Rand would endorse eugenics, mandatory abortion, or other violations of an individual’s rights (for the unborn, that would be the right of the parents). The philosophy is about individual rights having primacy over any claims made by others. Check it out sometime – it’s not for the intellectually squeamish as it is unbending and self consistent. The folks that can’t ever conceive of an absolute, then shouldn’t bother and get back with the flock.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:15 am
I think comparing Rand to Mao is like comparing apples to Hitler.
What blows my mind is all of the spittle inducing fury you can get from someone when you quote (insert right-winger here), but quote Mao and there is an element of the population that applauds you or gives you a pass, while the naysayers are treated as if they have no education on the matter.
Yes, Mao has a cute smiley face on all of those pretty banners, but are we that weak to communist propaganda? I was wrong in my estimation. 70 million perished under his reign. Maybe if Hitler had been a bit chubbier and had smiled more…I mean, aside from the war deaths, he only killed 6 million Jews, and a smattering of others, maybe if we’re going to split hairs about evil by degree, mathematically speaking, we should quote Hitler instead of Mao. But he doesn’t have dimples.
Lately I’ve needed some adoration from the educated class so I’ve added this quote to my repertoire: “Whenever I need to basically deliver a simple point, one of my favorite philosophers to quote is Hitler. Oh, and Mother Theresa.”
It’s not working for me.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:22 am
Oops, I wanted to add TF.. Guaman’s suggestion that you check out Rand is a good one. I honestly think you would like what she has to say. Maybe the Fountainhead, before Shrugged. Or the New Intellectual if you want to get straight to the core without the story.