| | I’d like to thank the participants for furthering the dialogue, even if it seems to have broadened into a forum on Sciabarra. I’d like to reply to a few additional points raised by Olivia for the benefit of the larger discussion. This is a two-part response.
Olivia writes that Anthony, who happens to be a friend, is “a prime example of everything I was stressing. You are a product of Chris Sciabarra and his writing, a living example of what he is saying. You are angry at Ayn Rand for her statements about homosexuality, and accuse her of many things. You accuse of her creating a ‘moral monster’ a ‘Frankenstein.’ And you of course,
never balance this with the fact that homosexuality was a small grain of sand in regard to her whole philosophy, and probably something she spent little time in thinking about. And of
course, where did you learn this, and where did you hear about this? From Chris Sciabarra!”
I do not keep faulting Rand for a remark she made in the 1970s; I’ve been very careful to place that remark in context, and to trace its implications and its effects on an entire movement, particularly a sub-culture of that movement: gay Objectivists. I cannot be responsible for how others will interpret it or use it, but I can tell you that a recognition of the facts of the reality of this situation is the first step toward changing the reality.
Anthony is no more a “product of Chris Sciabarra” than Roger Bissell, Kernon Gibes, Cameron Pritchard, Roderick Long, Joe Rowlands, or any number of other people who have posted here in support of the series; each person’s arguments should be judged on their own merits, as we are all individuals here.
Turning to Olivia’s “case against Chris Sciabarra,” let me say the following:
1) Rand articulated an opposition to “Women’s Lib”; the fact that I co-edited a volume called FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND does not dispute Rand’s explicit statements. What it does is to provide a forum for discussing Rand’s similarities to and differences from contemporary feminism, as well as her impact on many “individualist feminists.” Other volumes in the series are called FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF PLATO, FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF ARISTOTLE, and so forth. You may disagree with the analyses offered in these volumes, but an “interpretation” of a thinker through various feminist perspectives, does not mean that the subject (Plato, Aristotle, Rand, etc.) is, necessarily, a feminist. (Indeed, to say this in the context of Plato or Aristotle would be anachronistic!) These volumes simply provide a forum for scholarly give-and-take on questions of gender and sexuality as they are expressed in the works of the particular thinker in question.
2) I did write a book called AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL, and while you will find parallels made between Rand and Marx on the question of methodology (namely, dialectical method), you are dropping the wider context of that book. The book is part of a trilogy of books called the “Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy,” which includes MARX, HAYEK, AND UTOPIA (SUNY, 1995), AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL (Penn State, 1995), and TOTAL FREEDOM: TOWARD A DIALECTICAL LIBERTARIANISM (Penn State, 2000). The purpose of the trilogy was to reclaim dialectics as a methodological tool in defense of liberty. And what you will find is a defense of dialectics, which I view as “the art of context-keeping.” In fact, my brief history of dialectics in part one of TOTAL FREEDOM begins with the father of dialectical inquiry: Aristotle, who made the biggest impact of any philosopher on the thinking of Ayn Rand. Chapter One of TOTAL FREEDOM is entitled: “Aristotle: The Fountainhead.” So, regardless of how Rand would feel about it (as Cameron and others suggest), the fact is, I view dialectical method as something fully in keeping with the contextual thrust of Objectivist epistemology. We can disagree about the meaning of dialectical method, but that doesn’t make me an enemy of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. [I should point out that Roderick Long, who has participated here, has written a 60+ page ~critique~ of my trilogy in THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES (see ) to which I’ve written a reply, along with Roger Bissell, and Bryan Register, to which Roderick offered a rejoinder. That’s the nature of scholarly give-and-take, and even though I edit the journal, I don’t opt out of that process; I actively encourage the critical engagement... especially concerning my own work.]
See part two for the continuation of this response.
|
|
