[70] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wally)
Fri Apr 20 01:17:47 2001
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:20:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wally <wally@sub-zero.mit.edu>
To: "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>
cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU, merolish@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <200104200452.AAA27062@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104200059450.22563-100000@sub-zero.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> >I'm sorry you think that way. Does it bother you being a whore, taking
> >blindly, without a second thought to your pride? If you had any, you'd
> >realize that the moral _is_ the practical.
>
> What's wrong with hookers?
>
> If you think that me getting mine is impractical, I'm
> not sure we can agree on much of anything.
Actually, this raises the question in my mind (since I'm looking at the
hilarious aynrand.org site, the Ayn Rand Institute I think it's called):
what IS wrong with hookers? That is to say: if objectivism is based on the
survival and achievement of man qua man (I love the word 'qua' -- it makes
me feel like an Ivy League dilettante instead of an MIT dilettante), but
it forces man to define his success in terms of a strict set of activities
(the search for wealth, re-representation of an 'ideal man' through 'art'
that can never get past the merely mimetic), what *true* independence is
allowed? Beland's just a guy trying to better himself, based on a personal
understanding of the ideal man; on what grounds, exactly, would those
wacky objectivists *object* to this act of self-definition? Or, put
another way: shouldn't objectivism see itself as a meta-philosophy
entirely about self-definition, undoing its own (laughable) tenets about
the immense hipness of rolling in dough?
Also, re: the following quote from the essay 'Columbus Day: A Time to
Celebrate':
'Individualism is the only alternative to the racism of political
correctness. We must recognize that everyone is a sovereign entity, with
the power of choice and independent judgment. That is the ultimate value
of Western civilization, and it should be proudly proclaimed.'
How do you wacky objectivists justify the practice of Western
'Civilization' of lumping individuals (such as the millions of native
Americans already present in 1492) into groups for the purposes of
*economic policy*? Put another way -- how laissez-faire was the
U.S. government's extermination of native Americans? How authentically
objectivist is it to deal with 'Communists' and 'socialists' and
'fascists' when the word 'socialists' alone has to deal with Marx,
Trotsky, Stalin, Rosa Luxembourg, and (by Craighead's giggly logic) Ralph
Nader? Wouldn't any dedicated objectivist have to spend his entire life
writing ad hominem responses to anyone who disagreed with him (given that
writing email seems to be What These Kids Do when they're not cheering for
Bill Gates)?
Oh, and Mike Rolish: the armed forces should probably not, at some level,
be held responsible for the atrocities they commit in the service of
American governmental and corporate interests (if the two are separable).
But professionalism, as you put it, doesn't in my mind justify turning a
blind eye to the motivations and implications of your employers. Then
again, I'm a former-conservative-turned-basically-libertarian who finds
Chomsky distasteful but far easier to stomach than, for instance, Leonard
Peikoff, Ph.D.
--w.
ps. Personally, I don't feel that self-absorbed polemics like the stuff at
aynrand.org (or much of the mail on this list) deserve the time already
spent on them tonight. In true John Galt fashion, I've decided what's
important to me tonight.
pps. ...and it ain't objectivism.
ppps. It's BOURBON.
pppps. Prez -- how many College Republicans are there at MIT?
