Rand was always very clear about the importance of context and I wonder if that is part of the issue here.
Does she mean being expressive in private with a loved one or publicly expressive?
There are good reasons in some contexts for men (and women) to not fully express emotions. Sometimes, I really don't want others to know what I'm feeling or am concerned that their knowing might be a bad idea. I also recognize that emotions can be highly changeable. In a competitive setting like sports, you don't really want to let the opposing team know how badly you're hurt as it could provide advantage to them. For some emotions, particularly anger, in the moment reaction often could be harmful if not tempered by reason.
She was clear that emotions are not tools of cognition, but a feedback mechanism to allow you to know how events in reality align (pleasure) or don't align (pain) with your values.
I don't think there's any question that she would oppose modern emotionalism, in which emotions are held primary and reason either subsidiary or non-existent.
She did speak in terms of absolutes because her philosophy is based on the physical world, where things are absolute. Gravity doesn't change based on your feelings. Whether you need oxygen to survive or not doesn't vary with emotions.
Context is important because it moves those black and white principles into actual application. Which principles apply and how best to apply them is the "art" of living.
Rand was always very clear about the importance of context and I wonder if that is part of the issue here.
Does she mean being expressive in private with a loved one or publicly expressive?
There are good reasons in some contexts for men (and women) to not fully express emotions. Sometimes, I really don't want others to know what I'm feeling or am concerned that their knowing might be a bad idea. I also recognize that emotions can be highly changeable. In a competitive setting like sports, you don't really want to let the opposing team know how badly you're hurt as it could provide advantage to them. For some emotions, particularly anger, in the moment reaction often could be harmful if not tempered by reason.
She was clear that emotions are not tools of cognition, but a feedback mechanism to allow you to know how events in reality align (pleasure) or don't align (pain) with your values.
I don't think there's any question that she would oppose modern emotionalism, in which emotions are held primary and reason either subsidiary or non-existent.
Context matters a lot, and it would have been nice to see some of that mentioned in this interview.
I can think of times Rand has raised points on context, including free speech, but she had a tendency to speak in absolutes.
She did speak in terms of absolutes because her philosophy is based on the physical world, where things are absolute. Gravity doesn't change based on your feelings. Whether you need oxygen to survive or not doesn't vary with emotions.
Context is important because it moves those black and white principles into actual application. Which principles apply and how best to apply them is the "art" of living.
Naturally, emotions inform us. Feelings obscure. Best to observe.