The Books/Reading Thread

[crimsonfloyd]

Žižek has a great approach where he basically says that, when working with an influential thinker, we shouldn't ask what that figure can tell us about our epoch (i.e. what he/she looks like to us), but what we might reveal to that thinker (i.e. what we look like to him/her).

When critics offer "re-readings," I don't think we should accept or reject them as correct or incorrect interpretations. We should try and judge whether they offer a plausible "history" to the tradition they claim to be working within. The evidence of Hegel's epoch suggested his philosophy to him, although the failure of the French Revolution left him rather disillusioned. If he had been able to witness the twentieth century, I think he would have altered his theory.

Hmmmm... I don't know what to make of that. Can you give an example of the contemporary philosopher examining what his/her epoch reveals to a thinker of another generation?

It sounds a little bit like Heidegger's notion of "thinking the unthought" in the work of other philosophers, a method I found to have mixed results. Sometimes Heidegger really has brilliant insights into the works of other philosophers, other times he seems to put words in their mouths.

In general the question of "what to do with a philosophy," is one I have mixed feelings on. On hand I agree that a true philosophical text should be a pathway into one's own philosophical thought and therefore, must be interpreted and appropriated to read in a truly philosophical manner. On the other hand, I feel that this method is too often abused to make philosophies do whatever one wants them to do, a sort of cut and paste method that ignores the fact that so many of these philosophers' aim was to communicate a single concept or a small cluster of concepts through a system (certainly the case for Hegel). I haven't read any Zizek and have only seen a few lectures/ interviews, so I'm not saying that this is what he's doing, but it's a red flag that immediately pops up from how you've described his method.

I thought Ayn Rand was a joke among serious philosophers?

I kinda assumed that for a long time myself. But I've also had a few people I respect say that she has received an unfair amount of criticism. I've come to realize that my bias is based on reputation, not on actually reading her material, so I'm giving her a fair chance.

I'm also trying to read material that I think would influence my characters and I've noticed that a lot of strong-minded girls in their late teens/ early 20s really love Rand's novels.

 

[Dak]

I meant it in the sense that all philosophy might be deemed a "joke" from one perspective or another.

Rand is an individualist, so it would make sense they would find her appealing, particularly as a female individualist writer.

 

[Einherjar86]

Hmmmm... I don't know what to make of that. Can you give an example of the contemporary philosopher examining what his/her epoch reveals to a thinker of another generation?

Žižek is one example, of course; his implementation of Hegel and Lacan has really created a new brand of psychoanalytic cultural theory for the 21st century. Lacan was a profound reader of Hegel, and entirely disagreed with him; Žižek, on the other hand, argues that Hegel's thought is actually compatible with Lacan's, but neither theorist was quite able to "think" such a reconciliation.

Another example would be Fredric Jameson as a re-reader of Marx, someone who has tried to discern what Marx would have thought of 21st-century globalism (as he does in his book Postmodernism and his collection of essays, Valences of the Dialectic). Another example might be Judith Butler, whose knowledge of Foucault and Derrida has shown how both might have been influential in the field of gender studies. Finally, someone like Quentin Meillassoux, whose work takes up Hume's problem of induction/causality and explores its consequences in the wake of vast technological proliferation and scientific expansion.

I'm also somewhat surprised by your accusation that Nietzsche didn't understand Hegel, since what I've heard is that his ability to utterly denounce Hegel resulted from very rigorous studies of the latter's material. Robert Pippin, one of the premier scholars on Hegel today (and there aren't many), respects Nietzsche as a reader of Hegel.

I'm also trying to read material that I think would influence my characters and I've noticed that a lot of strong-minded girls in their late teens/ early 20s really love Rand's novels.

Rand is an individualist, so it would make sense they would find her appealing, particularly as a female individualist writer.

Although odd, since Rand also composed highly misogynist prose when you really break it down. Rand was obsessed with what she imagined as the "ideal man," a figure that manifests as Howard Roark and Hank Rearden: "What I was ready to write about was a woman's feelings feeling for her ideal man, and this is what I did in the person of Karen Andre [from Rand's play The Night of January 16th]". However, this figure (which Rand, of course, believed to possess specific "objective" qualities) is nothing more than a highly misogynistic portrayal that results from a warped feminine fantasy. Just take Karen Andre's lines from the play:

KAREN: He seemed to take a delight in giving me orders. He acted as if he were cracking a whip over an animal he wanted to break. And I was afraid.

STEVENS: Because you didn't like that?

KAREN: Because I liked it...

 

[Dak]

Power exchange is a documented and legitimate sexual "turn on", if you will. BDSM is based on it, and is not gender specific. Obviously in some cases, power vests in the male in the relationship, but not always. Obviously in Rand's case, she saw the transfer to her type of man as ideal(for her). I fail to see the problem/misogyny.

 

[Einherjar86]

The problem is that it's not ideal "for her"; at least not in her pseudo-philosophy. Howard Roark and Hank Rearden (even the similarities in the names start to creep me out) both exhibit misogynistic tendencies, absent Rand's female characters' total submission to them in sexual scenarios. For Ayn Rand, the ideal man is sexually dominant.

We can't claim that this utterly ends at Rand's personal sexual tastes. Objectivism proposes to delineate a philosophy where specific character types are de facto superior to others; Rand's sexually dominant males are just such superior character types.

 

[Dak]

Well obviously any philosopher sees their take on things as ideal. Otherwise they wouldn't advocate/formulate these ideas. Rand wanted John Wayne/Henry Ford rolled into one, rolled into her bed. Obviously Rand couldn't be misogynist in the sense you are suggesting, or she wouldn't have created a philosophy that flies in the face of what the majority of "intellectual" men thought.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why not? Why are the women in her stories always second to primary heroic male characters? Furthermore, don't you think someone can be misogynist and not believe it, or admit it? I mean, we were just talking about doublethink in another thread...

You can't save Rand quite that easily because her system was heavily non-theoretical and non-critical. She relied on common sense more than any kind of empirical or theoretical investigation. It flew in the face of academics in the sense that it isn't, in any sense whatsoever, "academic."

 

[Dak]

Why not? Why are the women in her stories always second to primary heroic male characters? Furthermore, don't you think someone can be misogynist and not believe it, or admit it? I mean, we were just talking about doublethink in another thread...

You can't save Rand quite that easily because her system was heavily non-theoretical and non-critical. She relied on common sense more than any kind of empirical or theoretical investigation. It flew in the face of academics in the sense that it isn't, in any sense whatsoever, "academic."

Oh I wouldn't defend objectivism across the board. But the misogyny charges abound in all sorts of areas, and all I hear is the annoying forums spammers who have to figure out a way to work "the patriarchy" or "privilege" into every single thread. What I'm saying is, regardless of the characters in the book, the act of writing the book(s) and it's contents is quite anti-misogynist.

 

[Einherjar86]

How so?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I'm also somewhat surprised by your accusation that Nietzsche didn't understand Hegel, since what I've heard is that his ability to utterly denounce Hegel resulted from very rigorous studies of the latter's material. Robert Pippin, one of the premier scholars on Hegel today (and there aren't many), respects Nietzsche as a reader of Hegel.

Well take a leading Hegel scholar's opinion over my own, but I've never found Nietzsche to say anything insightful on Hegel and I'm basing that off reading all of his major works several times. But again, it's very possible I overlooked something that would stand out to a major Hegel scholar.

Although odd, since Rand also composed highly misogynist prose when you really break it down. Rand was obsessed with what she imagined as the "ideal man," a figure that manifests as Howard Roark and Hank Rearden: "What I was ready to write about was a woman's feelings feeling for her ideal man, and this is what I did in the person of Karen Andre [from Rand's play The Night of January 16th]". However, this figure (which Rand, of course, believed to possess specific "objective" qualities) is nothing more than a highly misogynistic portrayal that results from a warped feminine fantasy. Just take Karen Andre's lines from the play:

KAREN: He seemed to take a delight in giving me orders. He acted as if he were cracking a whip over an animal he wanted to break. And I was afraid.

STEVENS: Because you didn't like that?

KAREN: Because I liked it...

I agree with Overwatch; S&M is a gender-neutral fetish. If a specific character happens to be a woman who likes masochism, I see nothing sexist in that. The charater says she liked being whipped, so from what can be derived from that small passage she was in no way being exploited. Can't speak on Rand's work on the whole obviously.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Is this misogynistic?

 

[Dak]

How so?

Rand was a women. If she were misogynist, nothing that she could write would be of value compared to the works of a man. So she wouldn't bother offering up some poor crumbs of stupidity. Because what else could she offer other than stupidity? She was a woman. She shouldn't dare worry her pretty little head about manly concerns or think about writing something that might waste the precious time of a man.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Is this misogynistic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpzDdTrw5II

Well that settles it.

 

[Dak]

@youtube video

Perfect example of Rand's problem. Believes conflicting things (irony!). What's the difference between being a Senator and President? Executive Power? But that's not supreme (or not supposed to be). Congress is actually supposed to be the ones with the war reins.

She grew up amongst "traditional" values, and challenged them by writing and with what she wrote. She was the leader/founder of objectivism. That meant she ruled any men who it appealed to. She was a living violation of what she purported to believe (there).

 

[Einherjar86]

Rand was a women. If she were misogynist, nothing that she could write would be of value compared to the works of a man. So she wouldn't bother offering up some poor crumbs of stupidity. Because what else could she offer other than stupidity? She was a woman. She shouldn't dare worry her pretty little head about manly concerns or think about writing something that might waste the precious time of a man.

She grew up amongst "traditional" values, and challenged them by writing and with what she wrote. She was the leader/founder of objectivism. That meant she ruled any men who it appealed to. She was a living violation of what she purported to believe (there).

I'm sorry dude, but what the fuck? Neither one of these makes any sense.

I don't understand how her misogyny precludes her from seeming interesting to men. Besides, I wouldn't even say she is explicitly misogynistic; I'd say her books are. If she writes misogynistic texts, doesn't it make sense that she might appeal to the "traditional" values of certain old white males?

 

[Dak]

I'm sorry dude, but what the fuck? Neither one of these makes any sense.

I don't understand how her misogyny precludes her from seeming interesting to men. Besides, I wouldn't even say she is explicitly misogynistic; I'd say her books are. If she writes misogynistic texts, doesn't it make sense that she might appeal to the "traditional" values of certain old white males?

What? If she were misogynistic, she wouldn't waste men's times with her stupid little books and thoughts, because what other sorts of thoughts can a woman have (to the misogynist)? I thought it was pretty clear. Either that or you are setting the bar for misogyny absurdly low.

 

[Einherjar86]

Misogyny need not be conscious. She can actively think herself a feminist and yet write misogynistic texts. Misogyny can be ideological; it doesn't have to be subjectively perpetrated.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Finished Anthem. Very well-written story. At times it's a little idealistic and unrealistic, but taken as an allegory it works quite well. I really love the shift in intonation as the main character finds himself. The final two chapters have some good insights into Rand's individualist ideology. I actually agree with a lot of it, though I'm not convinced that will is derived from a totally privatized source in the manner she suggests.

And as far as sexism, I did find this novel to be kind of sexist. The main character finds a bunch of books in an abandoned house in the forest and learns about the whole of human history. That inspires him to go on a rant about how "I" is most sacred, all we really have, etc. First thing he does after reading the book is give himself a name. Second thing? Give his lady a name. Doesn't it seem that if he's just realized that "I" is most important that his lady should name herself? The first thing the character does after his epiphany is transgress the core principles he has just prescribed to. The lady is also presented as not much more than a baby-making machine in this new utopia and the main character raves about all the sons he will have.

 

[Dak]

Misogyny need not be conscious. She can actively think herself a feminist and yet write misogynistic texts. Misogyny can be ideological; it doesn't have to be subjectively perpetrated.

I'm saying it's the opposite. Assuming that to say you wouldn't vote for a woman president is a misogynistic statement, she is professing to it. Yet her actions in forming a philosophy, a society to go with it, and all the literature, speak otherwise.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I don't think they speak otherwise at all.

You're banking off my last comment about American exceptionalism being implicit in what Cooke was saying. There's nothing implicitly anti-misogynistic in Rand simply creating her philosophy if that philosophy is sanctioned by a masculine hierarchical structure; rather, her work projects and condones the sexually (and politically/economically) subservient feminine as a natural complement to the ideal heroic male.

EDIT:^ read CF's remark. That book is dead-on misogynist, for sure. Males are dominant in Rand's image of society; females occupy, by natural sexual physiology, a subservient position. Her later female characters (e.g. Dagny Taggart) are only ever empowered and enabled by a more powerful male.