The Most Villainous Philosophy

[Mindfire]

But isn't the usual objectivist opinion of the Scrooge/Cratchit relationship simply that Cratchit is lazy and irresponsible and therefore deserves the low wage he is being paid?

 

[Mindfire]

Regardless, I think I've come to realize that "objectivism" isn't the right name for what my villain personifies. Perhaps what I've been searching for is "Machiavellianism" or "Nietzsche-ism"?

(That last one's not a word. Sue me.)

 

[Jabrosky]

I know next to nothing about Objectivism as preached by Ayn Rand, so I don't consider myself qualified to comment on it. I do dislike "libertarian" capitalism, which people stereotypically associate with Objectivism, but that's more to do with my general dislike for capitalism than anything particular to Objectivist philosophy.

 

[Shockley]

But isn't the usual objectivist opinion of the Scrooge/Cratchit relationship simply that Cratchit is lazy and irresponsible and therefore deserves the low wage he is being paid?

No. If you want a full Objectivist analysis of the relationship, Cratchit is making a fundamental mistake by subjecting himself to Scrooge.

Regardless, I think I've come to realize that "objectivism" isn't the right name for what my villain personifies. Perhaps what I've been searching for is "Machiavellianism" or "Nietzsche-ism"?

The only major differences between what what Nietzsche taught and what Ayn Rand taught boil down to differences on religion (while anti-Christian, Nietzsche seemed to believe in a god; Rand did not) and the role of reason (Nietzsche has been described as anti-reason; Rand saw reason as the driving force in life). If you break down what they actually believed, taught, etc. they're still fairly similar. Rand, like Nietzsche, focused quite a bit on the idea of living a 'full' live - for Rand that was productivity, for Nietzsche it was the shedding of habits and beliefs that he saw as life-denying.

You have to be careful with Nietzsche because it's always very easy to look at what he wrote and interpret it in a very negative way and in a very positive way. For example, Nietzsche self-described as an 'immoralist' and rejected the very idea of morality - which on the surface looks very bad and worthy of condemnation. His actual stance, below the terms, was that the moralities of the 19th century - primarily Christianity and Utilitarianism - were failed moralities that were destroying the human spirit. This is actually where most of the accusations of anti-semitism come from, because he rejects the entire Judaic ethics system and even the dichotomy of good-evil. But he still had a very clear moral system, and one that was relatively advanced compared to what was being advocated for at the time.

It's important to remember that for all of the bad press he gets, Nietzsche once broke down crying at the sight of a wounded horse.

As for Machiavelli, it's important to distinguish between what the Prince was and what Machiavelli actually believed. Machiavelli, personally, was a republican who supported a more open system than what was common at the time. The Prince was more of an analysis of tactics and methods that rulers had used in times previous to the one he lived in and to explain his time. That's why he's considered the first political science - he's stating the state of things without concern for political leanings.

---

I think you might be putting too much stress on philosophy, since no philosophy can really be evil as it is little more than a method for understanding the world around you. An evil person can have objectivist trappings, Nietzschean trappings, etc. and still not be a real advocate for the actual philosophy, just as one could have the trappings of Platonism, Positivism, Epicureanism, etc. and do evil.

But I think - and this is fundamental - that a very particular kind of person goes out looking for a philosophy to describe their life and their values (a philosopher, if you would). The person who takes that time, who makes that conscious decision to define life - I don't think they can ever be evil. I think they can be in error (massive errors, even) but I think they are beyond the concept of evil and, much like Nietzsche, I don't really buy into the idea of evil.

I know next to nothing about Objectivism as preached by Ayn Rand, so I don't consider myself qualified to comment on it. I do dislike "libertarian" capitalism, which people stereotypically associate with Objectivism, but that's more to do with my general dislike for capitalism than anything particular to Objectivist philosophy.

Rand had a special hatred for libertarians, actually. It's one of the more interesting ideological feuds.

 

[Shockley]

Jabrosky: I actually took a second to look up some of Rand's comments on the Libertarians:

"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."

"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement."

"They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas."

"Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism."

"But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of morality—and no government. That’s the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you don’t leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it’s good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other’s rights.

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them."

So yeah, those are just a handful of examples of about twenty years worth of some serious Libertarian hatred from Rand.

 

[Mindfire]

Well maybe there just isn't a word for what I'm trying to describe and what my villains so often exhibit: that grasping, egotistical, callous, maleficent spirit that sees in other human beings nothing more than tools for constructing or fuel for sustaining the the great machine of ambition and war. The spirit that motivates a man to "save humanity" by destroying it.

 

[Shockley]

Well, there is a word - 'evil.'

I just don't think there's ever been a philosopher who advocated for that.

 

[Mindfire]

Well, there is a word - 'evil.'

I just don't think there's ever been a philosopher who advocated for that.

El Diablo?

And well, while that attitude is evil, what I'm looking for is a word to describe what flavor of evil it is. Which in retrospect is probably a better description for what I intended this thread to be about: "evil flavors". There's something of a difference, at least in the story that results, between the evil propagated by a fascist and an anarchist for example.

 

[wordwalker]

while that attitude is evil, what I'm looking for is a word to describe what flavor of evil it is. Which in retrospect is probably a better description for what I intended this thread to be about: "evil flavors". There's something of a difference, at least in the story that results, between the evil propagated by a fascist and an anarchist for example.

Evil can be anything, because it isn't a motivation, it's any human desire when it becomes unbalanced and pushes a person to start making trouble. You might as well talk about a unified "force of dangerousness" --and of course, the two are almost the same thing, except the one needs a moral component.

That said, evil (like danger) still has its more "usual suspects." Greed, revenge, maybe a drive to promote your own people or "improve the world" --if it overwhelms their compassion enough. Anything that pushes people over the line, from whatever angle.

 

[wordwalker]

Well maybe there just isn't a word for what I'm trying to describe and what my villains so often exhibit: that grasping, egotistical, callous, maleficent spirit that sees in other human beings nothing more than tools for constructing or fuel for sustaining the the great machine of ambition and war. The spirit that motivates a man to "save humanity" by destroying it.

Sounds like a fusion of a couple of things, though of course they do tend to feed on each other. Pure ambition, or maybe fanaticism about a "worthy" cause, along with callousness or lack of empathy (megalomania?) and maybe cruelty for its own sake to tighten the screws.

 

[Rullenzar]

In the long wrong it really doesn't matter what you choose as long as you have fun doing it. If you enjoy how you write your villain it will show on the pages and make for a great read.

 

[Steerpike]

I think you might be putting too much stress on philosophy, since no philosophy can really be evil as it is little more than a method for understanding the world around you. An evil person can have objectivist trappings, Nietzschean trappings, etc. and still not be a real advocate for the actual philosophy, just as one could have the trappings of Platonism, Positivism, Epicureanism, etc. and do evil.

I think this is something more authors would do well to remember. I don't mind a book that is meant to support a specific viewpoint, politically, philosophically, or otherwise. I'll read it (if it is a good book), whether I agree with the position the author is taking or not. But when you get into the situation where you believe some social, moral, or political philosophy is inherently evil and all those who adhere to it have to be evil, then you aren't dealing with real characters anymore, but with caricatures. It doesn't matter if your evil characters are all liberals, all conservatives, all Christian, all atheist, all Objectivists, all Socialists, or what have you. The story becomes very transparent and clumsy at that point, and readers are right to toss the book into the trash and move on to something else.