Have no place on an Objectivist seminar. I my memory is correct, there is also a session on yoga. I just hope that they do not end up in the "Atlas Shrugged" movie!

While the world is perishing in an orgy of self-sacrifice, I cannot imagine wasting time on a lecture on homemaking. Moreover, the activity is hardly important enough to have seven of its very own virtues. And christ, don't women have something better to do than make sure that the pillows on their couches are all properly matched? Sheesh, I can barely manage to keep up with the major repairs on our house... although maybe that's because I don't have all those seven virtues of homemaking... or maybe that's because I'm busy living a life!

Oh I think it's silly to talk about the "virtues" of homemaking, but I think it fits into Ayn Rand's concept of a stylized universe, of pursing values in every aspect of your life, and of having your favorites in every sphere of your life. In that sense, I think it's a perfectly suitable Objectivist topic, if done right. But by my eyes talking about it in terms of its "virtues" is wrong. But I think it would interesting to explore how you can make something we usually think of as a time thief into something that adds pleasure to your life.

Ah! I just remembered. From Mary Ann Sures book... "One day, I was depressed because an acquaintance had been criticizing me for taking pleasure in cleaning a copper-bottomed frying pan. I enjoyed cleaning it and then seeing it shine on the wall, hanging on a peg board. It was the only piece of decoration in my kitchen. I was bothered by the criticism that I was finding enjoyment in something so nonintellectual. So, I told Ayn that I was troubled by something and asked her if we could have a discussion about it. She suggested that we do it during lunch.

"I told her about the incident, and she nodded in understanding. When I finished, she said, 'Oh, check your premises.' I told her I didn't know what premises to check. So, she led me to understand the issue by questioning me about my response to the copper pot. She pointed out that it was significant that I didn't clean it and then put it away, that I hung it up so I could look at it and enjoy its beauty. That, she said, was a rational value, and I shouldn't apologize for it. In that discussion, she explored my attitude to housework in general and learned that I didn't mind doing it, and then she led me the understand that I enjoyed the result - a polished and shined appearance to a room - and why that was a valueI shouldn't apologize for. She added that I didn't expect others to accomplish that for me, which was a virtue. Then she said, 'Do you know what we are doing?' I didn't know what she was getting at, and I said, 'We are analyzing this situation.' She said, 'What we are doing, Mary Ann, we are taking ideas seriously. You are applying philosophy to your life. This is what philosophy is for.'" (44-45)

There's more, but you all will just have to buy the book to find it out!

I was wondering the same thing about the mission statement...that Hudgins wrote it. 

As regards Ed Hudgins' wishy-washiness, we have this out of his mouth just a couple days ago on RoR:

"But I think it's very possible to move the culture back -- or forward! -- * to the principles of personal responsibility, concerns for self-interest in the right sense of that term, a recognition of the importance of reason and science to a good life and good world, and a desire to eliminate the paternalist welfare state and restore individual liberty."

*Ed apparently doesn't know if he's coming or going.

To which Chris Cathcart incisively responded:

Rand "...didn't see the need to put it in terms of 'concerns for self-interest in the right sense of that term.' Why put it in that way, when she had a way of putting it that was forceful and unambiguous? Or, when did Ayn Rand put her message in
terms of 'principles of individual responsibility'? Of course she's all about and all for individual responsibility*, but I never saw her use that phrase, from what I can remember. She did speak about individual rights, though, which I don't see mentioned above."

etc. see the rest of Chris's comments here:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1398_1.shtml#32

*She does discuss "responsibility" in the context of supposed "conflicts of interest", but that's in a specific ethical context, not in the mushy political context Ed is apparently referring to.

Penelope asked: "I recall Ayn Rand writing somewhere that even homemaking qualifies as a career if one approaches it that way. So couldn't a course on homemaking be legitimate?"

I believe Ayn Rand was speaking about full-time motherhood of small children, actually. (That's a very different matter!) And I think that's in the Playboy interview. Oh, here it is:

PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?

RAND: Not immoral -- I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper -- if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.

While the world is perishing in an orgy of self-sacrifice, I cannot imagine wasting time on a lecture on homemaking. Moreover, the activity is hardly important enough to have seven of its very own virtues. And christ, don't women have something better to do than make sure that the pillows on their couches are all properly matched? Sheesh, I can barely manage to keep up with the major repairs on our house... although maybe that's because I don't have all those seven virtues of homemaking... or maybe that's because I'm busy living a life!

Okay... enough of a rant... I do actually like both gardening and cooking, but I wouldn't regard lectures on those topics as appropriate to an Objectivist conference either, no matter how many "virtues" those activities might have.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

I recall Ayn Rand writing somewhere that even homemaking qualifies as a career if one approaches it that way. So couldn't a course on homemaking be legitimate? (I doubt this one would be though!) Actually I just read the course description:

This lecture applies Objectivism to domestic life, with an emphasis on homemaking activities. Molly Johnson will present seven virtues of homemaking and show how they relate to survival, rationality, benevolence, excellence, and the expression of values. Questions from the audience will lead into a lively discussion of traditional and modern roles of women in making a home, plus a takeaway questionnaire for further reflection on this important but oft-neglected activity.

I like that: "...will lead to a lively discussion of traditional and modern roles of women in making a home." If she already knows how the question period will go, and where the discussion will lead, I'm supremely impressed!!!

Wow, I never noticed that bizarre bit about "social manners and mores." Maybe that's why TOC's Summer Seminar this year includes a lecture on the "The Virtues of Homemaking." Seriously. The major qualification of the speaker seems to be that she doesn't have a job.

I wonder: Has this mission changed since Ed Hudgins took over as Executive Director? It sounds like his peculiar variety of wishy-washiness. (Gee folks, we wouldn't want to alienate and antagonize people by actually advocating Objectivism as true! That's too scary! Let's just vaguely hint at something barely Objectivish instead. And never ever challenge people's false ideas. That's alienating and dogmatic and authoritarian. Or forget Objectivism, let's just promote a mish-mash Englightenment ideals... since Objectivism is really just Englightenment philosophy. So that's kinda like promoting Objectivism! Good enough! I'm sure we'll influence the climate of public opinion very soon! ...any day now...)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

"This morning, I sat on the crapper and achieved a satisfying crap. Is that a core value?"

Arrgh.

Didn't need this image in my head. Another example would have served your point better.

From ARI:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ari

The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), a 501(c)(3) educational organization, was established in 1985 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. ARI has a distinguished Board of Directors and a staff of about 30 employees.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was an ardent advocate of reason, rational self-interest, individual rights and free-market capitalism.

ARI seeks to promote these principles, spearheading a "cultural renaissance" that will reverse the anti-reason, anti-individualism, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist trends in today's culture. The major battleground in this fight for reason and capitalism is the educational institutions—high schools, and above all, the universities, where students learn the ideas that shape their lives. 

Ayn Rand's philosophy—known as Objectivism—holds that historical trends are the inescapable product of philosophy. To reverse the current political and economic trends in America and throughout the world requires a reversal of our society's fundamental philosophy.

Victory in this war of ideas will ultimately mean the defeat of the widely held, pernicious ideologies that dominate contemporary culture and threaten our liberty—ideologies such as statism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, racism and mysticism.