Happy & Brainy Group discussion
Literature
>
For Fiction Writers (aspiring, new, or accomplished)
Mod
FW-1100: What is the purpose of your writing?
- Defining your goal or vision is a must at the start of any endeavor
FW-1200: What type of a fiction writer are you (or do you want to be)? Romantic Realist or Naturalist?
FW-1300: Action plan to accomplish your purpose
FW-1400: Basic Principles of Literature
Aristotle: Fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because history represents things only as they are, while fiction represents them “as they might be and ought to be.”
A novel is a long, fictional story about human beings and the events in their lives.
The four essential attributes of a novel:
1) Theme
2) Plot
3) Characterization
4) Style
Mod
From The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand - The motive and purpose of my writing: To the Glory of Man
* * *
[for update]
Mod
From Ayn Rand: “As far as literary schools are concerned, I would call myself a Romantic Realist.”
Broad categories of art (condensed from Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto):
Romanticism recognizes the existence of man’s volition (of choice, standards, values). Naturalism denies it.
Volition or anti-volition premise:
If man possesses volition, then the crucial aspect of his life is his choice of values – if he chooses values, then he must act to gain and/or keep them – if so, then he must set his goals and engage in purposeful action to achieve them. The literary form expressing the essence of such action is the plot.
A plot is a purposeful progression of logically connected events leading to the resolution of a climax.
If man does not possess volition, then, his life and character are determined by forces beyond his control – if so, then the choice of values is impossible to him … - if so, then he is impotent to achieve his goals or to engage in purposeful action… The literary form expressing the essence of this view is plotlessness.
Mod
[for update]
Mod
(condensed from Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto; references to Reason Reigns are mine):
A novel is a long, fictional story about human beings and the events in their lives. The four essentials of a novel (theme, plot, characterization, style) are attributes, not separable parts. They must be integrated.
1. A theme is the summation of a novel’s abstract meaning. It defines a novel’s purpose. It serves as the integrator of the novel.
2. A plot is a purposeful progression of logically connected events leading to the resolution of a climax.
The theme and the plot must be integrated.
Plot-theme:
- the link between the theme and the events of a novel
- the central conflict or “situation” of a story
The theme of a novel is the core of its abstract meaning – the plot-theme is the core of its events.
3. Characterization is the portrayal of those essential traits which form the unique, distinctive personality of a human being.
Characterization in a novel can be achieved only by two major means: action and dialogue. It requires the portrayal of essential traits. Consistency is its major requirement.
A writer must SHOW what a character does and what he says (as opposed to asserting his nature). It could be done gradually, but at the end of the novel, the writer must reveal the motivation of his characters.
4. Style
A literary style has two fundamental elements:
- choice of content
- choice of words
Literary styles (reality-oriented vis a vis emotion-oriented):
Comparison of styles: Descriptions of the front cover of Reason Reigns
4a) It is a pleasure to contemplate the stunning sculpture on the front cover of Reason Reigns.
4b) The sculpture on the front cover of Reason Reigns is not a work of art.
4c) On the front cover of Reason Reigns is a sculpture of a naked woman triumphantly raising a torch, arms stretched high above her head, body straight and proud, feet firmly atop a skull over a thick book. The woman’s exalted pose is a salute to man’s intellectual and creative power.
* * *
I have endeavored to write using the reality-oriented style, to present facts instead of arbitrary assertions or emotion-oriented adjectives.
In The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn presented and compared the literary style of two excerpts from two novels:
"Both are descriptions of the same subject: New York City at night. There is not one emotional adjective in one author’s description; the author presents nothing but visual facts. The other author does not give a single visual detail; he asserts that the city is beautiful but does not say what makes it beautiful.
The first style is reality-oriented; the second is emotion-oriented - the author expects the reader to accept emotions divorced from facts, and to accept them second-hand.
The first style has to be read in full focus, because the reader’s own mind has to estimate the given facts and evoke an appropriate emotion; if one reads such style out of focus, one gets nothing – there are no pre-digested emotions. If one reads the second style out of focus, one gets a vague approximation that the author has said something important; if one reads such style in full focus, one sees that the author has said nothing."
Mod
Draft:
An artist does not fake reality - he stylizes it. He selects those aspects of existence which he regards as metaphysically significant - and by isolating and stressing them, by omitting the insignificant and incidental, he present s his view of existence.
- The Romantic Manifesto
Mod
How does one prepare before one embarks on writing fiction?
*
Read. Read history and news events. Read about heroes, scientists, industrialists, successful people, and their endeavors/battles.
Read about victims of injustices, about tyrants and martyrs, and what makes injustices/tyrants/evil possible?
Observe/Investigate the places, people, leaders, laws, culture, and the philosophy related to your "study of interest".
Think about your own experiences.
Next step - introspection:
What moves you the most? What do you feel passionate about? If you have the power to transform something - what would it be?
What kind of people do you want to meet, to be with? What kind of a world do you want to live in? What would it take to create such a world? What obstacles/struggles would you contend with?
Think of values and virtues, and the response of heroes as well as villains to them.
Literature is art in words. What you want to contemplate would be the basis for your content, theme, plot, and characters.
Quote from The Romantic Manifesto:
"When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work - and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it."
Next step - prepare to read The Romantic Manifesto
It took me years before I could fully understand many philosophical principles. I could not understand The Romantic Manifesto the first time I read it.
Reason Reigns is a novel I wish I had read when I was a youngster; it depicts philosophy in a way that kids could grasp and enjoy.
Mod
I am glad for J.K. Rowling. I wish her well on her present and future endeavors. I have seen Harry Potter (HP) movie scenes on TV. I like it that her heroes are good kids. Despite the enormous commercial success of the HP books and movies, I have not read any of the HP books (there are many others on my to-read list).
A fantasy story does not have to adhere to the Laws of Identity (A is A) and Causality (Either-Or; you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.). It does not have to be logical (non-contradictory identification).
[Update: The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it.]
A snake can become a butterfly at the wave of a wand. A mountain can be a lake at the same time. The author does not have to justify any assertion, nor does he have to be consistent.
Weapons can appear from thin air. One can fly a helicopter without learning how to, or one can fly on a broomstick.
Romantic Realists project moral values and present man as he could be and ought to be. Such artists do so within the Laws of Identity, Causality, and Logic. They are of the mind that nothing is outside the province of reason.
It has been said that there are no men/women like Howard Roark, Dagny, or the other heroes of Atlas Shrugged, and that there will never be.
At first, some who read the Reason Reigns (RR) manuscript commented that RR’s youngsters of mettle are too young to be that bright or valiant. I replied, “Dr. Jose Rizal and Thomas Edison existed.”
At age 35 when he was executed, Dr. Jose Rizal had accomplished great things. He was a polymath and a polyglot. He passionately valued individual rights and knowledge, at a time when independent thinkers would surely die.
I watched the movie, The Boy Edison, years ago. These stuck in my mind:
The boy Edison was popularly described as addled because of his active mind and pursuits of knowledge (curiosity and experiments).
Scene:
His Mom got sick while his Dad and his older brother were away. Edison asked his little sister to fetch their brother.
Their Mom worsened during the stormy night. The doctor couldn’t operate until morning when there’s enough light. But Edison’s Mom might not survive the night without being operated on.
The town’s bridge was washed away by the storm that night. The townspeople could not communicate with the inbound train. Edison’s siblings were on the train with many other people. The town was desperate; the train would surely plunge into the river.
* * *
To be continued… when 10 people request so :) :) :)
Or, someone might kindly continue the story…
Mod
1. President George Washington. He rejected a movement to make him King of the United States, calling it "abhorrent."
He is the embodiment of Reason Reigns' "A moral man does not rule, nor can he be ruled by men."
2. Dr. Jose Rizal, a man of great virtues.
The title and plot summary of Reason Reigns evince that it is about reason, independent thinkers, individual rights, and technology. Besides the requisite title and author’s name, its front cover features only one object, a Dr. Jose Rizal sculpture, for two reasons:
Its title, The Power of Science over Death, is perfectly apt for the novel.
The sculpture represents the values depicted in the book. Excerpts from Chapter 8:
The tower and the Balian lab were located at the top of a hill. At the foot of the hill was an expanse of a sweet-smelling rose garden. From the rose garden by the western road, a rising ramp of steps led to the Balian home. Big trees and gardens surrounded the residence and the tower. The gardens were laden with fruit trees, shrubs, orchids, and various other plants having flowers of unusual shapes and vivid colors. Sculptures enabling the contemplator to experience a reverence for existence abounded. The three-dimensional figures showed man’s goodness and efficacy. They gave one joy, rest, and fuel to pursue heroic goals. The works of art evinced that nothing was outside the province of reason. They proclaimed the power of science over death.
Jay and Lea gazed at the visual delight in awe.
Phil thought proudly, “This is my country.” His eyes moved to the sculptures by the foot of the ramp at the edge of the rose garden. Life-size marble statues of a man and a woman were side by side, barely touching, with bodies stretched taut, hands reaching for the firmament, heads tilted upwards in ecstasy, feet on tiptoe, ingeniously balanced on a smooth marble platform. As always, the pair of sculptures electrified Phil. Lea was drawn to the reverence on his face, his pose an exalted salute to man’s intellectual and creative power. She fell in love.
[end of excerpt]
Dr. Jose Rizal passionately valued individual rights and knowledge, at a time when independent thinkers would surely die. He valued these and his country more than his life.
Such passion and mettle are glorified in Reason Reigns. Rizal is the embodiment of the novel’s beau ideals.
Patrick Henry: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Other research findings:
From Noli Me Tangere: “It’s not criminals who provoke great hatred, it’s honest men.”
When the Philippine Organic Act of 1902 was before the US Congress, the Democrats argued that the Filipinos were too barbaric to govern themselves. Their party platform stated, “The Filipinos cannot be citizens without endangering our civilization.”
Republican Congressman Henry Cooper of Wisconsin argued that a society that could produce a man of Rizal’s abilities was certainly capable of self-government. He read Rizal’s “My Last Farewell” on the House floor, capping it by the peroration, “Under what clime or what skies has tyranny claimed a nobler victim?”
The bill passed.
Had Dr. Jose Rizal lived in a free society, he could have been a Thomas Edison, a Thomas Jefferson, a Henry Ford, or a Bill Gates. Because he died so young in defense of liberty and reason, whereas I live in freedom, I honor him in Reason Reigns.
As a first-time novelist, I needed to think and work immensely hard, wanting my act to be worthy of his greatness.
3. Chapter 9 of Reason Reigns is titled "99 Percent" in honor of Thomas Edison. He defined genius as “1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.”
I am so inspired by his life, as a boy and as a man. I love the movies: "The Boy Edison" and "Edison the Man".
4. This is in the vanguard of my book, the banner of Reason Reigns:
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
- Thomas Jefferson
5. A main character in Reason Reigns is named Alisa Connor in honor of Alisa O'Connor (Ayn Rand). I find her a profound value. She and her heroes have made me a better and happier person.
Alisa O'Connor, together with the aforementioned heroes, is in every page of Reason Reigns.
* to be continued
Mod
1. US trade publishers do not accept unagented submissions.
2. Literary agents have their own submission guidelines.
http://www.agentquery.com
3. Learn to write a one-page query letter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_le...
4. Have you thought about your book's front cover?
- - -
Contained in my 1/11/2008 email to Catherine, the cover designer of Reason Reigns:
FRONT COVER
Contents:
Reason Reigns
Ilyn Ross
Sculpture sketch
VISIONS for the book cover of Reason Reigns
* Simple, clean, easy on the eyes
* A book cover that "looks HAPPY" would be great!
- - -
5. Back-cover text
- - -
Contained in my message to Patty:
... have you finalized the back-cover text? With Reason Reigns, I found this very challenging. I had so many versions before coming up with something I love.
If someone asks: "What is this book about?", how do you answer in forty words? This is the maximum for the Ingram description - Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc. use this forty-word teaser.
Mod
I'm so happy you're back. I will read & answer the ? shortly.
Have fun.
Mod
Do you think
1) man has a choice of how to live his own life?
a) each man has a destiny, predetermined by forces he has no power to resist?
*
2) "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul" (from Invictus)?
b) man's life and his character are determined by forces beyond his control?
*
1 & 2 are the premises of Romanticism (volition premise).
a & b are the premises of Naturalism (anti-volition premise).
- - -
If man possesses volition, if he chooses values, then he must set his goals and engage in purposeful action to achieve them.
If this is the premise of a writer, it would show in his work. He would define the values of his characters, and would depict their actions to achieve them.
The Romantic writer would have a purpose or theme. He would construct a purposeful progression of logically connected events, known as plot.
A Romantic Realist recognizes that nothing is outside the province of reason.
*
Please take a look at the "Literature" topic for more info.
Mod
The theme of Reason Reigns is: Heaven on Earth can be achieved when reason reigns.
I wanted to tell the story that heaven or lasting happiness can be achieved here on Earth, and that the only way it could be done is by using reason.
I wanted to say that God is all-good and all-loving that He makes it possible for man to achieve happiness in this life. I wanted to show that God's supreme gift to man is reason.
Mod
Existentialism, according to Ayn Rand, "proclaims the supremacy of emotions in an unknowable, incomprehensible, inexplicable, nauseating non-world."
Mod
There must be some good republicans and good democrats.
Democrats could lead the country to socialism while Republicans, who pander to the religious right, could lead the country to theocracy. Both are evil, but theocracy is the greater evil.
Galileo lived under theocracy.
Mod
*
Some people's response to greatness is admiration. But there are people whose response to it is hatred, envy, and the desire to destroy.
I think Bill Gates is a genius and a great man.
There have been other geniuses and great men who were persecuted, jailed, defamed, called robber barons ...
and the public shrugged in apathy ...
or even elected the prosecutors-persecutors into public office ...
Mod
I plan. Before I wrote my novel, Reason Reigns, I made decisions. As a fiction writer, I decided to be a Romantic Realist novelist, then read up on the four essential attributes of a novel:
1) Theme
2) Plot
3) Characterization
4) Style
I thought of the qualities of the books that pleasure me - I defined my writing principles.
I decided:
- to write about a serious theme (literature) that could be enjoyed by readers of all ages.
- to project values; to construct a purposeful progression of logically connected events depicting the values of characters and their actions to achieve them.
- to achieve characterization by means of action and dialogue; to SHOW what a character does and what he says (as opposed to asserting his nature). Gradually, or at the end of my novel, I must reveal the motivation of my characters. My characterization has to be consistent.
- to use the reality-oriented literary style (instead of the emotion-oriented)
*
Then I planned my novel. I thought up its theme (purpose), then the plot. I integrated them into a plot-theme (the link between the theme and the events of a novel; the central conflict or “situation” of a story).
I thought up essential traits of characters consistent with the plot-theme.
In writing Reason Reigns, I integrated my choices of content and words (fundamental elements of a literary style) to my plot-theme and characterization. I always reminded myself that every scene must advance the theme, that every sentence must have a purpose consistent with the plot-theme and characterization, that the four attributes of my novel have to be integrated.
*
The Happy & Brainy group has a "Literature" folder.
I consider myself a romantic realist, but possibly stray from that, occasionally. I still haven't managed to read RR but will, soon, on my return. I have rejected most organized concepts of religion for the primary reason that religions tend to want to deny individual reasoning. "Organized religion" - by definition - almost requires a "like mindedness."
I love heroes of novels who are thrown into difficult situations and rise to the challenge of the moment to succeed by intellect, determination, goodness, courage and some good fortune (often of their accidental making).
There are many books, movies, and stories of heroes with "powers." We have powers, but not fantastical powers. I love watching characters develop from "average" to "exceptional" as they find previously-unrealized strength and wisdom in themselves.
Mod
Thank you for joining us.
Mod
Romanticism demands mastery of the primary element of fiction: the art of storytelling - which requires three cardinal qualities: ingenuity, imagination, a sense of drama. All this (and more) goes into the construction of an original plot integrated to theme and characterization.
Naturalism discards these elements and demands nothing but characterization, in as shapeless a narrative, as "uncontrived" (i.e. purposeless) a progression of events (if any) as a given author pleases.
The value of a Romanticist's work has to be created by its autor; he owes no allegiance to men (only to man), only to the metaphysical nature of reality and to his own values. The value of a Naturalist's work depends on the specific characters, choices, and actions of the men he produces - and he is judged by the fidelity with which he produces them.
The value of a Romanticist's story lies in WHAT might happen; The value of a Naturalist's story lies in THAT it did happen.
If the spiritual ancestor or symbol of the Romanticist is the medieval troubadour who roamed the countryside, inspiring men with visions of life's potential beyond the dreary boundaries of their daily toil - then the symbol of the Naturalist is the backfence gossip (as one contemporary Naturalist has somewhat boastfully admitted).
Hello, I'm new and thanks for the invite! As a published author who has been in the game for nearly twelve years, I will try to share anything I can and any advice that may be helpful and shed some light. This looks like a very peaceful and relaxing group. Best Wishes!
Mod
Welcome. Thank you for joining us. Best regards.
Mod
The philosophical meaning or the vested interest of presenting man as a loathsome monstrosity is the hope and the demand for a moral blank check.
- The Romantic manifesto by Ayn Rand (page 126)
Mod
Romanticism is a value-oriented, morality-centered movement: its material is not journalistic minutiae, but the abstract, the essential, the universal principles of man’s nature – and its basic literary commandment is to portray man “as he might be and ought to be.”
Thrillers are simplified, elementary version of Romantic literature…. Thrillers are kindergarten arithmetic, of which the higher mathematics is the greatest novels of world literature. Thrillers deal only with the skeleton – the plot structure – to which serious Romantic literature adds the flesh, the blood, the mind.
The plots in the novels of Victor Hugo or Dostoevsky are pure thriller-plots, unequaled and unsurpassed by the writers of thrillers.
- The Romantic manifesto by Ayn Rand (page 132)
As always you post very interesting comments, Ilyn. Thanks:-)I have a few questions to Message #28, Ilyn:
Why is the conviction that the human being is a helpless automaton necessarily irrational? (The necessity seems to be implied by Rand in the quote.) And why does that image of "a monster" serve to necessarily reassure people having such a belief that "I am not that bad"--let alone it being a search for a "moral blank check"?
I realize that I might one day have to purchase Rand's book, if I want to delve into it, but for now I'll have to discuss it as it comes along here on GoodReads; sharing the thoughts with you guys here:-)
Hi again... I am not quite sure I understand all of the quote in #29, Ilyn.If romanticism is "the essential, the universal principles of man's nature"--how does this connect with wanting to portray man "as he might be and ought to be"? The first is supposed to be what is, isn't it? (the universal principles); the second sounds to me as if it's dealing instead on some sort of wish thinking, which is not directly connected to or supported by the former.
I can easily see that the latter is focusing on ethics, of course ("might", "ought"), but I also fail to see why ethics is necessarily the core of "universal principles of man's nature". As I see it, ethics is just one of several core philosophical disciplines, all of which can contribute equally to our knowledge of man and the World. As indeed I think they do in literature.
In #9, you say, Ilyn:"A fantasy story does not have to adhere to the Laws of Identity (A is A) and Causality (Either-Or; you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.). It does not have to be logical (non-contradictory identification).
A snake can become a butterfly at the wave of a wand. A mountain can be a lake at the same time. The author does not have to justify any assertion, nor does he have to be consistent.
Weapons can appear from thin air. One can fly a helicopter without learning how to, or one can fly on a broomstick."
I'd say that's not quite true. At least when it comes to the Causality issue. And I think some of your own examples make this clear: The snake becoming a butterfly is happening because of the wand; the weapons appear from thin air. That's causality at work, full force. And flying a broomstick doesn't go against Causality, merely experience and the Laws of Nature as we know them;-)
As for the fantasy writer not having to be consistent--I don't agree completely, at least not as it stands here. In fact, I'd say that the reason e.g. Harry Potter is so popular is that Rowlins manages to stay consistent even though she is working within a fantastic universe. You're of course right that a fantasy writer doesn't have to justify assertions, but that goes for just about any other writer as well, I think. There are always limitations to what you have to assert in a story. And a good thing, that, otherwise the story would be stopped by constant justification & assertion;-)
What's the difference, if any, between a surreal story and a fantasy story, btw? Cf. those definitions. I am honestly curious...
Mod
I am so glad :) :) :) to see your posts.
Mod
*
It is observable that man has volition (free will), that choice is his nature. The anti-volition premise (each man has a destiny, predetermined by forces he has no power to resist; man's life and his character are determined by forces beyond his control) has no correspondence with reality – it is irrational.
To be a helpless automaton is a choice.
What makes a man choose to believe that he has no control over his own life? I think it’s lack of self-esteem. Say a professor praises Shakespeare and Tolstoy, and says that everyone in the world admires them. When a student reads that man’s destiny is determined by an innate "tragic flaw”, that man's desire for happiness is evil, that man must conform to society - only a student with profound self-esteem would trust his own mind against such pressure.
Why does one like to contemplate art depicting evil monsters? [This is different from studying real-life evils for the purpose of counteracting them.:] Or art depicting main characters with no values, purpose, and independent thoughts? I haven’t given it much thought, though I wonder how many say they like popular artists even if deep down they dislike their works, because they rather not challenge the judgment of “authorities” or the majority.
*
From Reason Reigns: … Those who do not THINK (i.e. use reason) constantly fear the unknown; they follow, copy, or repeat mindlessly. In the face of alternatives, they are never certain whom to imitate or what to borrow. …
- - -
“God is all-good and all-loving. He is not a sadist. Neither is He malevolent nor whimsical. He is just, firm, and steadfast. His creations share the same attributes: nature is governed by laws that are unchanging.
Every creation of God has an identity that was, is, will always be, and had to be. Whether a man’s understanding of nature is real or not, true or false, right or wrong, depends on its correspondence to a thing’s identity.
God is so benevolent that the laws of nature are absolute. They are not subject to change by time, whims, or even by prayers. They are not open to anyone’s choice. They remain constant to the good as well as to evil.
God is so just that the laws of nature are knowable by every man. They are not revelations arbitrarily disclosed to a favored few. God is so loving that He has gifted man with the faculties to understand nature.
Every man who chooses to use God’s endowments reaps benefits. Those who do not constantly fear the unknown; they follow, copy, or repeat mindlessly. In the face of alternatives, they are never certain whom to imitate or what to borrow. They might choose to rule those who do use their minds, by force, or by the thinkers’ overly generous goodwill or unearned guilt.
It is necessary to build defensive structures against those who might use force.”
- - -
Mod
If a man believes he has no volition, no choice how to live his life, then he'd believe he can't help what he is, what he does. Anything outside choice is outside the province of morality, so if a man believes he is born flawed and has the tendency to be evil, then he'd believe he is not responsible for his actions.
An image of a hero would belie such a belief while the image of a man like himself would reinforce his belief.
It is possible that the image of a hero would spur such a man to think and reverse his anti-volition premise.
Mod
From Message 29 (shortened): Romanticism’s material is not journalistic minutiae, but the abstract, the essential, the universal principles of man’s nature – and its basic literary commandment is to portray man “as he might be and ought to be.”
*
Shorter version: Romanticism’s material is “not minutiae”, but the essential, the universal principles of man’s nature.”
Another shorter version: Romanticism’s material is not "journalistic" minutiae - it must portray man “as he might be and ought to be.”
This is from message 25:
The value of a Romanticist's story lies in WHAT might happen; the value of a Naturalist's story lies in THAT it did happen.
If the spiritual ancestor or symbol of the Romanticist is the medieval troubadour who roamed the countryside, inspiring men with visions of life's potential beyond the dreary boundaries of their daily toil - then the symbol of the Naturalist is the backfence gossip (as one contemporary Naturalist has somewhat boastfully admitted).
[Take note: troubadour inspiring men with visions of life's potential (might be and ought to be) vis a vis backfence gossip]
Mod
A snake CANNOT become a butterfly (Law of Identity; logic; by a snake’s nature and a butterfly’s nature, a scientist cannot turn one into the other and vice versa; by a wand’s nature, it cannot change the nature of objects).
Weapons CANNOT appear from thin air; they are man-made. One CANNOT fly a helicopter without learning how to, or one CANNOT fly on a broomstick.
From The Ayn Rand Lexicon - Objectivism from A to Z:
The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it.
Mod
For other genres, inconsistencies would destroy the story.
I won't go into the God part of your argument, Ilyn. I don't believe in God and see no reason to either.As to the rest of the "free will" argument... First I must say that I find it interesting that you, who have elsewhere argued much against empirical evidence (or, at any rate, empiricism), now insists on empirical evidence. In any case, I do not agree that it is observable that man has a free will. What is observable is that we (or, at least, most of us) believe we have a free will to do otherwise. Most of us also experience that we can choose this or that. Personally I believe that this feeling (!) is true. Nonetheless it could be argued--on scientific grounds (be that rationally based or empirial based; both can be scientific)--that that's all it is: A feeling or, if you will, a sensation. But that in fact it's an illusion. How so? Well, if one accepts that the human mind is basically the workings of the physical brain, it seems to follow quite naturally that the unyielding Laws of Nature (with unbending Causality, cause & effect etc.) rule there as well. And in summary the brain is neurons & other materials working, in complex, but essentially strictly Causal ways. Hence, these levels just do what they must inevitable do, and since we're only the sum of these workings, we cannot choose otherwise. At best we only believe it to be otherwise.
I hope that made some sort of sense;-) Again, I am not saying the above is how it is, but merely that we can argue, rationally and on reasonable grounds, along such lines. So how do we find out which is "really" working?
I guess that's why I teach & study philosophy, hehe;-)
As for the "hero and moral blank check" point, Ilyn: I see your point, and I think I even, largely, agree. It certainly is possible that the "healthy" kind of hero, that you want to advance, can have a person think and reverse a negative and unhealthy kind of life.However, it is also possible that, when reading a story with an "anti-hero", the person might benefit much from that--for instance, by reaction like "Ah, c'mon! I can do better than that!";-)
I do not agree that a person believing in anti-volition (to paraphrase you) necessarily would give up everything and then say "Ah, what the heck--I'll just go out and do evil deeds now!"
Btw--accepting that human is born flawed is not the same as accepting having "a tendency to be evil", is it? It sure isn't in my book, anyway;-)
Mod
It is for those who want to read through them.
RE. message 37:I am sorry, Ilyn, but I don't accept your usage of Law of Identity, Causality and the way you want to adher logic to "the nature of things". I'd like to know how you think you know about the (essential) nature of e.g. butterflies, snakes and broomsticks--and what can or can't do with them. I can see how this line of reasoning is inspired by Aristotle.
Aristotle got many things right, especially when it comes to logic--but his notion of "nature of things" is not his greatest success. And if I am right in guessing that's where your line of reasoning comes from, Ilyn (feel free to correct me, if I'm wrong;-)), then you need to explain the connection with his belief in e.g. the four elements, which was essentially the world view he believed in, and which is not accepted nowadays. I know Thomas Aquinas bend it toward God, but that doesn't really hold up in a (strictly) rational and scientific debate either.
(I am for the moment ignoring that all of the above can make for great ideas for stories;-))
Also, this "CAN or CANNOT" notion of yours--isn't that more based on ideas derived from empirical evidence, than reason? And I'd like to know what criterions you have for "Identity", without ending up with a tautology ("A is A because A is A")? And we need to be aware, here, that the Law of Identity itself does not say anything at all about a possible change from one thing to another.
Causality: The relation between two items, the one of which is the cause of other [from THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY, Oxford, 1995]. You're of course right, Ilyn, that this does not permit a person to eat a cake before having it (for that requires cause and effect), but it says nothing about not "have a cake and eat it", since that sentence, taken literally, says absolutely nothing about have or have not beforehand, that is, what has happened causally;-)
Either way--a snake becoming a broomstick (yeps, I am improvising now:-P) is not against Causality. For causality as such does not say anything about "the nature" of things. You can of course choose to add that, but that's going beyond the notion of Causality itself.
I think that is one of the reasons (good) fantasy stories work and can become believable. And why they can be quite consistent, even if not abiding the Laws of Nature as we normally understand or believe it.
Just some thoughts.
Please strike the "four elements" part of what I wrote above (Messsage #42); I was too hasty there. Aristotle's thinking is less about that and more about a teleological idea. I was too hasty, for which I apologize.But I stand by the rest of what I said;-)
Mod
*
A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest — but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.
- Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual,
*
Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.
Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.
The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action. ...
- “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness
*
Rationalism vs. Empiricism
[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps:
those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists) — and
those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists).
To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality — and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.
- “For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand
*
More on empiricism in the next post
Hm. We just seem to be at odds about quite a score of things, Ilyn. Oh well, it's interesting nonetheless:-DI do not agree that a rational process necessarily is a moral process. In fact, I do not see that "devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality".
Neither do I see how rationality is a virtue. It's a capability a person has to a smaller or larger degree, yes, but a virtue? Perhaps I just misunderstand what this means. I'll give this a little more thought before commenting on it...
And I find the rationalist vs. empiricist description too far in the direction of simplification to really hit the mark.
Oh well. And so it goes. More later. I look forward to what you have to say re. empiricism, Ilyn:-)
Just wanted to make it clear that to me the philosophical discussion we've entered here is closely connected with the overall topic ("For Fiction Writers"). It may not be everyone's cup of tea (or coffee:-P), but I've only asked those questions and shared my thoughts because I find them interesting in that light.In fact, I think contemplating on such matters can go hand in hand with the fine Four Essential Attributes of a Novel that Ilyn shared in the beginning of this thread.
Thanks for the link, Ilyn. I've only scanned it briefly, but will look at it more closely later.
Mod
I greatly appreciate thinking people like you, who are very interested in ideas - sharing them, seeking for and pondering on new ideas.
I believe almost everyone on Earth wants to be good and to do good. But we are not infallible - decent men could hold false premises. It is great to exchange and discuss ideas - I've learned much - thank you.
Ayn Rand commented on the expressed convictions of her favorite novelist, Victor Hugo, which were inconsistent with the greatness he projected in his novels. Even the geniuses, the heroes, have inconsistencies.
Mod
If one does not use reason, then one can never be an independent thinker. One will always be a dependent, a parasite - one will copy or obey mindlessly, or one will demand from those who use reason that they take care of him because it is their duty to do so.
A dependent adult cannot have self-esteem. Without self-esteem, one cannot achieve happiness.
Mod
What is the hallmark of morality?
*
Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man’s only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.
- Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual
*
Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.
- Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
*
The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions.
- Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 65.
*
Consider the catch phrase:] “It may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” What is the meaning of the concept “truth”? Truth is the recognition of reality. (This is known as the correspondence theory of truth.) The same thing cannot be true and untrue at the same time and in the same respect.
That catch phrase, therefore, means: a. that the Law of Identity is invalid; b. that there is no objectively perceivable reality, only some indeterminate flux which is nothing in particular, i.e., that there is no reality (in which case, there can be no such thing as truth); or c. that the two debaters perceive two different universes (in which case, no debate is possible). (The purpose of the catch phrase is the destruction of objectivity.)
- “Philosophical Detection,” Philosophy: Who Needs It
Mod
*
From: Why Businessmen Need Philosophy by Ayn Rand, essay by Leonard Peikoff
… There are three fundamental questions central to any philosophy, which every person must answer in some way: What is there? How do you know it? And, what should you do?
The Founding Fathers had answers to these questions.
What is there? “This world,” they answered, “nature”. (Although they believed in God, it was a pale deist shadow of the medieval period. For the Founding Fathers, God was a mere bystander, who had set the world in motion but no longer interfered.)
How did they know? “Reason was the only oracle of man,” they said.
What should you do? “Pursue your own happiness,” said Jefferson.
The result of these answers – i.e. of their philosophy – was capitalism, freedom, and individual rights. This brought about a century of international peace, and the rise of the business mentality, leading to the magnificent growth of industry and of prosperity.
For two centuries since, the enemies of the Founding Fathers have given the exact opposite answers to these three questions. What is there? “Another reality,” they say. How do they know? “On faith.” What should you do? “Sacrifice yourself for society.”
This is the basic philosophy of our culture, and it is responsible for the accelerating collapse of capitalism, and all of its symptoms: runaway government trampling on individual rights, growing economic dislocations, worldwide tribal warfare and international terrorism – with business under constant, systematic attack. ...
Ilyn, in #50 you asked, "What is the hallmark of morality?"I'll quote Heinlein on this, "Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."
Lots of elbow room there for adding in local rules & behaviors that contribute to the tribe's survival. Rationality would certainly be one I would add in - it helps in my world.
You also quoted Galt, "Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man’s only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth."
I have a real issue with the first part & that leads into your later quotes as well.
Reality is not the same for everyone since our relative facts or circumstances can vary widely. A physical object can be the same, yet perceived completely differently. This is what leads to politics & Capitalism; you have it, I want it. “It may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” is a fact of life, not something to be sneered at.
We have an 8oz glass half full (or half empty) full of water - one objective reality - the optimist versus the pessimist.
The half full glass is an annoyance to be emptied or a treasure to be saved depending on your available amount of water - another objective reality. 4 oz. of water can be worth a lot, if you don't have any other water available & you're thirsty. Buy a water at a ball game sometime & compare the price to what you'd normally pay. Supply & demand.
The only 'Truth' we agree on is that there is a glass & it contains 4 oz. of water. After that, it's time to dicker.
Or, am I misunderstanding what she's saying about 'Truth'?
Reason, thank whoever is cranking lately, is NOT man's only means of knowledge. There's measurement, observation & experimentation. Reason without ALL of these leads to thinking that large stones fall faster than small ones.
Hi Ilyn I would like you to continue the Edison scene.I feel like I am getting a lot out of the Fiction Writers group. Please keep it going.
Hugs,Donna
Mod
Thanks for joining us. I will continue the Edison scene this weekend.
Best regards & hugs.
Happy & Brainy Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Physics of Star Trek (other topics)The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought (other topics)
Elbow Room (other topics)
Knight's Fork (other topics)
- accomplished writers and intellectuals would share their wisdom
- new and aspiring writers would blare out their fresh ideas
- everyone would comment and/or ask questions