"Presumably, Cooper believes Rand to be a defender of nonconformity. However, Cooper is mistaken. Rand defended the virtue of independence. The independent person is primarily oriented to reality, rather than to other people."It's a pretty interesting book overall, since the field of advertising lends itself inherently to philosophical discussions like objectivity versus subjectivity, conformity versus authenticiy, and the manipulation of the ego and reality itself.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Put this in your Rand-sighting file: "Egoless Egoists: The Second-Hand Lives of Mad Men" by Robert White, published in Mad Men and Philosophy: Nothing Is as It Seems (part of the Philosophy and Pop Culture Series.)
Much of Mad Men fits the theme of The Fountainhead in its expose of second-handers, and White gets it right:
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Back in 2007, Leonard Peikoff made waves in the Objectivist community with his advocacy of voting for the Democrats across the board. In case you missed it, here's the Q&A. One particular part, however, would become forever known as "the fatwa":
In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.
It's taken the Obamanation a little over a year to prompt Peikoff to do a 180 degrees:
"I always vote long-range over short-range...but, if and when, and the short range means immediate death and disaster, then there is no long-range to wait for or work for!...It's at the point where if it's not stopped...I still think it's the religionists that will take over...but despite everything, I will vote Republican this November."
Now, does this mean that anyone who voted Republican does understand Objectivism? Or that anyone who voted Democrat was detached from the world?
Um, "Go away and come back tomorrow..."
That, folks, is why this blog is called Objectivish. I know where I differ from "official Objectivism," I don't speak for "official Objectivism," and I don't care to. Besides, if that is an example of "official Objectivism," I'd sooner kiss a flying monkey than an "official Objectivist's" ass.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
That's pretty much the response from the Left to Rand Paul's comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Though it's his own fault for even appearing on the Rachel Maddow show... talk about walking into a lion's den...but I digress.) I wonder where the Left is when I see a black man walk down the street towards me wearing that? If Rand Paul is so wrong, well, shouldn't there be, by the Left's own pretzel logic, a law against such a shirt?
Of course not. And, of course, neither Libertarianism not Objectivism supports racism; See Rand's essay "Racism" from The Virtue of Selfishness, and the Libertarian argument for a free market solution. But don't expect this to be acknowledged by the Left, who would prefer to keep minorities victimized in the never-ending crusade to destroy liberty in this country.
Let them keep playing that race card. Just know that my hand is better. And don't expect this honkey to shut up, either.