RoR: Forum

Hey! Give mythology a break! Mythology would and does understand the Hero with a Thousand Faces... It alone perhaps can see many Roarks--Unity in Diversity. Even Rand who almost NEVER allows for the idea of variety (Unity in Diversity) sees the many Heros of her novels (her mythologies) as variations on the theme of the Ideal Man.

It is mythology and perhaps only mythology which can actually help us here. One day ARI will understand that the Darth Vader they are fighting is actually themselves. (The Star War series is very garbled so this might not be the best way to put it, I do realize).

Post 61

Sunday, December 1, 2002 - 1:47am

A minute ago I was laughing hysterically to myself about that Per is brilliant! He has managed to engage some of Objectivism's savviest without a clue to the meaning of words like "independence". On the other hand I have really enjoyed the insights from Barry, Francios, Chris, Philippe, and Anthony. But that sure is a lot of fire power to light a weak wick. HA HA.

Anyone here going to second the nomination of Per to receive the Duchamp Prize?

Post 62

Sunday, December 1, 2002 - 6:56am

Philippe, calm yourself. My comment "talk about mythology" was directed against the Myth that Lindsay Perigo is Not an Objectivist. I am second to none in my appreciation of, and love of, the world's mythology, and I think that one of the strengths of Rand's fictional corpus, is that she created a virtual mythology of heroes to sustain her vision. Even Rand herself recognized the power of myth (look at her comments on the television miniseries, "Roots" for example)---and she self-consciously incorporated many important Greek mythological references in her work. So, nothing I've said here is directed against mythology as such.

I should say however, that maybe I should rethink calling myself an Objectivist. It seems that all I need do is say: "I am not an Objectivist"---and the door shall be open for me and people like me.

The problem is that anytime a journalist asks me: "Are you an Objectivist?"---my first answer, almost invariably, is: "Well, it depends what you mean by that." Because their conception of "Objectivist" is "orthodox true believer"---and that, sad to say, does not apply to this heterodox, unorthodox dialectician. :)

~I~ have always viewed Objectivism in terms of core principles---not agreement with every last statement made by Rand or her immediate followers. And on those grounds, how can I not say: "I am an Objectivist"... especially when it's the truth?

Oh well...

I guess I'll have to deal with my essential intellectual dishonesty here, and accept myself, thorns and all.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 63

Sunday, December 1, 2002 - 8:34am

This will probably be my last post.

Let me first say a few words about a minor point. One of my opponents said that Sciabarra�s use of the the word Objectivist to describe Murray Franck was an off-hand-remark. Until I read Sciabarra�s posts here, I was going to reply to this that Sciabarra is a very intelligent and knowledgeable man, and that he chooses his words carefully, and that it would be an insult to him to say that his books contains off-hand-remarks. But after reading his posts here, I am not so sure anymore. (Scaibarra has in his long posts here not commented upon this concrete issue, strangely enough, although he has written many words about peripheral topics.)

Sciabarra first claimed that one had to in effect sign a loyalty-oath in order to get access to the archives. (He did not say it this bluntly, of course.) When I documented that this was incorrect, he said �the Ayn Rand Institute simply creates a ~de facto~ loyalty oath� in order to use the archives.� But this is not the same as he originally claimed.

And I did not say that Sciabarra was silly. I said "this is silly", when he used nazis and islamists in an example.

Scaibarra seems to be surprised by the access-policy of the archives, which I posted here. He says: �But since it doesn't seem to restrict my colleague, Marxist Gene Bell-Villada, from using their archives, I will be delighted to inform him of this policy, and I hope he will take advantage of it�. I am surprised that Sciabarra was not acquainted with this policy. So, Sciabarra wants to get into the archives, but he is not even familiar with the material available on the website.

One more point here. Sciabarra seems to be dissatisfied with the fact that the material is available only in the archives and not in LOC. Am I surprised that some people here prefers a state-run archive to a private archive? No, not really.

Now, over to the important points:

While surfing a few days ago, I came over this discussion-thread, and I read something about the ARI-boycott of some scholars.

I wrote a short piece saying that ARI boycotts - in my view, rightly so - people who claim that Objectivism is not what Ayn Rand said it is, but something else: an open system containing what they claim to be everything that is true in philosophy, which means that they regard Objectivism as a mixture of all or many of Ayn Rand�s points, and some of their own. (The original pieces are still available here, so I paraphrase and I try to make this short.)

The reason Ayn Rand wanted to keep Objectivism closed was to preserve the integrity of Objectivism. If Objectivism is regarded as an open system, then lots of stuff that is not compatible with Objectivism may come to be regarded as parts of Objectivsm, and Objectivism will become a hodgepodge of opposite and conflicting views. (The situation will then become similar to today�s version of libertarianism, which is full of internal contradictions. I said a few words about this in an earlier post).

Let me give one example: Objectivism opposes the mind-body-dichotomy. Kelley once wrote that �Soviet tyrants are not evil because they believe in Marxian collectivism. They are evil because they have murdered millions of people..�. This is an expression of the mind-body-dicotomy.

If I were to present the point Kelley makes in a manner that is consistent with Objectivism, I would write something like the following: �Soviet tyrants are evil. They believe in Marxian collectivism, and as a result of accepting this evil doctrine, they have murdered millions of people.� This is, as far as I can see, a formulation that is consistent with Objectivism�s mind-body-integration.

So, when knowledgeable men like Kelley have views on this important issue that is different from the Objectivist view, and they still claim to be Objectivists, then Objectivism eventually will be torn to pieces.

Another issue, related to this, is the view of Kant. The Objectivist view is that he was evil. Some people connected with TOC disagree with this, they refuse to describe Kant as evil. But this means that they are not in agreement with the Objectivist theory of how to evaluate ideas.

How to regard ideas, how to evaluate them, how to view the connection between ideas and reality, how to regard the connection between ideas and actions, how to evaluate the connection between a man�s ideas and his responsibility for his actions - these questions are central to Objectivism. Objectivism cannot have both of two opposing views on this point (nor on any other point).

The mind-body-dicotomy that is so common all around us, then, exists in some people who regard themselves as Objectivists. Let me give one concrete implication: I described Kelley, Sciabarra and the Brandens as dishonest. Some posters defended Kelley and Sciabarra. By implication, they seem to accept my description of the Brandens. But both Kelley and Sciabarra work with the Brandens. How can Kelley and Sciabarra continue to work with dishonest people, if they also defend honesty as a virtue?

If the people here believe that if Objectivism is opened up, then Objectivism will, as time goes by, contain more and more of everything that is true in philosophy, then I must say that this is a result of a very naive view on how the world works. Yes, in the long run, the true and the rational will prevail, but if Objectivism is opened up, Objectivism will from time to time contain things that are incorrect, and this will slow down the process to the future we all want.

But, thanks for the discussion. I have tried to present my case as convincingly as I could (given the time I was willing to spend on this), but it does not seem as if I have concvinced anybody of the people who has posted here. But that is the way it is, sometimes.

Regards
Per Hansen

Post 64

Sunday, December 1, 2002 - 10:39am

Since this is Per Hansen's final post, let me answer his specific points as best I can:

It is a shame that Hansen sees so many of my words as comments on "peripheral topics" because I think that the words speak to the heart of this issue. He has not attempted even once to view this whole discussion from the perspective of intellectual history--which is the perspective that I adopt in my examination of the whole "who is an Objectivist" thread.

In my original article here, and in subsequent posts, I did not discuss the 'loyalty oath' issue with regard to the archives. I discussed the issue in relation to the 'boycott' of THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES. The discussion has since branched out with regard to the archives. But what Hansen says is correct: I have always
claimed that "one had to ~in effect~ (emphasis added) sign a loyalty-oath in order to get access to the archives"... and his quote from the ARI site proves my contention, because it is clear that the "sole discretion" of ARI is based on pure partisanship. They are still fighting the battle of 1968, let alone the battle of 1989---how many more purges of how many more people will we have to endure before nobody qualifies to enter the pearly gates of the Ayn Rand Archives?

I have ~never~ claimed that any of these people have engaged in ~de jure~ prohibitions; look at my original article and you will see that even in my discussion of the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" I used the phrase "de facto." Boycotts, are by their nature, voluntarily organized. At the very least, we are civilized people: orthodox Objectivists of all stripes are not attempting to kill the unorthodox and the heterodox. They ~do~ believe in the non-initiation of force; nobody has ever doubted this. They aren't Marxist-Leninists! In contrast to many within the orthodoxy, ~I~ do have a sense of proportion about all these things.

And yes, Per Hansen did say that my example of "nazis and islamists" was silly... not that I was silly. Still, I suppose I don't mind being called silly, even in my use of examples; it is preferable to being called intellectually dishonest.

I am completely familiar with the policies of ARI with regard to the archives: my comment was made with a little tongue-in-cheek. I have been receiving material about these archives, and have spoken directly with ARI representatives of these archives, over the last few years. I still maintain that any policy based on "sole discretion" is ultimately one that will filter out ~people~ that are 'persona non grata' with ARI, hardly an 'objective' way of allowing access to this material.

As for my dissatisfaction with the fact that ARI controls the papers, and not the Library of Congress, Per Hansen comments: "Am I surprised that some people here prefers a state-run archive to a private archive? No, not really."

Well, then, Per, you ought to start with the top: Because it was Ayn Rand ~herself~ who was honored initially, and who said so, when she was asked to place her papers with the Library of Congress. So if I'm guilty of wanting public and open access to these papers, I am no more---and no less---guilty than Ayn Rand. What transpired after the initial offer of the Library of Congress is anyone's guess. (And yes, I would prefer that taxpayer funds not be used for ~anybody's~ archives.)

I hope to comment on the mind-body, theory-practice thing again and again... but let me just say that I regard David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and many others as friends. I also had a Marxist mentor --- Bertell Ollman --- for my doctoral dissertation. (And truth be told: Sidney Hook, the celebrated Marxist, was Peikoff's mentor... and Peikoff always had a warm regard for him.) I do not evaluate my relationships with people by their closeness (or lack thereof) to Ayn Rand or Objectivism. This is much too complex a situation to apply a simple rule to.

That's all for now...
Cheers,
Chris

Post 65

Sunday, December 1, 2002 - 11:46am

Per wrote about ARI: "If they boycott people who claim that Objectivism is a mixture of their own ideas and Ayn Rand's ideas, it is the right thing to do."

I ask: And if they boycott people like George Reisman - who was excommunicated simply because he questioned the propriety of Schwartz running an ARI course for which he was unqualified - this too would be the ~right~ thing to do?

Peter Cresswell

Post 66

Sunday, December 1, 2002 - 6:10pm

Thank you all for your responces to my posts and thanks for the recommended readings. Chris, no worries--I'm cool and I know very well you love mythology. (I was just giving you a hard time...)

Francois, you said that item # 3 was that some IDEAS are inherently evil. I have heard (or read where) the ARIans say that. Just now it struck me that this statement could be the basis for exposing an internal contradiction in their thinking--if one wants to bother.

The idea that an IDEA has actually a moral status (inherent evil) implies a kind of neo-animism and anthropomorphism. Objectivism theoretically only grants moral status to human actions, not even human thinking. But here we find it acting like the savages who grant strange powers of consciosness to trees and rocks.

Post 67

Monday, December 2, 2002 - 1:10pm

It's a denial of free will, pure and simple. If ideas are evil, then people have no choice in acting or not on the basis of their ideas.

Coupled with the Peikoffian rantings against determinism, that leaves them with a big blank out.

Neither natural law, nor individual choice ! Maybe God forces us to act then ? Or randomity ?

Oops indeed...

Post 68

Monday, December 2, 2002 - 2:11pm

Whew. I wanted to wait until you responded Francois. I was going to post on this before but I was not sure that Objectivism would lead us away from intrinsicism but directly into it. If one were to read Rand's writings on the precise demarcation of morality and thought (and only knew the ARI way of thinking), one might indeed conclude that to think a thought that was evil, to read one or to entertain one would be morally reprehensible. I would therefore be, the chiefest of sinners, for I have read and entertained all of Sciabarra's books:)

Post 69

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 12:07pm

Per Hanson:

'Thouroughly dishonest people like the Brandens (check out http://www.escapingamerica.com/e_rand1_1.htm) are also sometimes described as Objectivists.'

I'm not going to attempt a systematic break down of this article I'm simply going to point out some flaws. In the article it is claimed that Rand's obssesive compulsive behaviour of hand washing is simply irrelevent habitual behaviour picked up in childhood due to poverty, and is continually practiced. It may be true that it may influence a person to be a 'neat freak' but not in an obsessive compulsive way that Rand was (verified by Peikoff, and the articles author). Many psychologists know that obsessive compulsive handwashing (or any obsessive compulsive behaviour) is usually used to ward off unwanted anxiety. The article's author continually attempts to explain the other of Rand's psychological shortcomings with similar explanations. Branden's explantion for his actions are summorized in his own words;
'Only gradually did I realize that she did not tolerate disagreement well. Not among intimates. ... I did not notice the steps by which I learned to censor negative reactions to some of her behaviour.
... I did not give her the corrective feedback everyone needs from time to time; in it's absence we can become to insulated from reality, as she did.
...The simple truth was, I valued her esteem too much to place it in jeopardy.
...I told myself that I didn't want to cause pain. I waited for her to see what I saw.
... I was relating to an abstraction, the author of The Fountianhead and Atlas shrugged, rather than to the concrete woman in front of me.
... And because I delayed, I caused suffering and humilation to us both'

Branden confesses that they both were to blame for the madness that was there relationship, I find his explantions for the events honest and rational.

'What happens with open systems? Let me take one example: libertariansim.

Among libertarians we find anarchists, minarchists, minarchists who support forced taxation (Murray Franck), people who support the draft (Mises), welfare-statists (Hayek, Friedman). What, then is the libertarian view of the state and the tax? All that there can be (there is even a group of libertarian socialists). What is the libertarian view on the right to abortion? Both. What is the libertarian view on gun-control? Both. What is the libertarian view on copyrights? Both. What is the libertarian view on patents? Both. This is chaotic, but will be the result when systems are regarded as open.'

There is no such thing as the libertarian philsophical system, it is a name traditionally given to people who promote individual freedom/lassiez faire goverment/anarchy, it is a political view.

'Let me give one example: Objectivism opposes the mind-body-dichotomy. Kelley once wrote that Soviet tyrants are not evil because they believe in Marxian collectivism. They are evil because they have murdered millions of people... This is an expression of the mind-body-dicotomy'

Moral condemnation is a complex subject, but I see no way how Kelley's assertion advocates a mind body dictomy. The mind is consciousness and the body refers to our biological anatomy right? so how does it support the mind-body dictomy. I think you mean the dictomy between mind and action, I agree with Kelley in a similar respect, I regard Hitler as evil, but I regard the pope as bad or a fool. The difference is that where as hitler grossly infringed on indiviual rights and was a murderer, the pope communicates idea, which people are free to follow, question or ignore. Moral condemnation is much more complex than the ARI makes out, for instance would you regard your local minister as evil, in regard to the fact that many of his assertions, are similar to Plato's or Immanuel Kant's, or are they only evil because they were philsophers? There are of course people who practice the objectivist virtues yet preach and advocate a different philsophy, evil? I really would like to see one of my favourite thinkers Sciabarra address his view of moral condemnation.

'Ayn Rand wrote: "Objectivism is the name I have given to my philosophy..." (I guess everyone here knows the rest of that quote.) Thus, Objectivism is the name of the philosophy published in the material Ayn Rand wrote or endorsed.'

I'd like to ask anyone, if they regard the law of identity as Aristotle's creation or discovery? (you should have answered discovery) It has been shown by Rand that man needs philosophy (which is true) and a philosphy based on reason is the only correct one (which is true), I regard Objectivism as a DISCOVERY and not a creation. Therefore Objectivism needs to be regarded as open, and further analysis and debate needs to be continued to ensure that the premises are correct, and adhere to the facts of reality.

I look forward to your reply.

Post 70

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 6:07am

This thread has been very educative for me - i am an african (from Zambia) studying interesting philosophies like Ayn Rand's, but i had some doubting questions after being "over-exposed" to traditional paleo-objectivists in my research. It left me with the feeling that there was a bit of a contradiction with real reality in some of their postulations.

Now I see that it is not everyone who is completely separated from reality, and this makes the basic tenets of this philosophy a little more attractive.

I must conclude by stating that it seems to me that there are some intellectuals who are more interested in defending their traditional definitions of Objectivism, than they are in actually seeing its principles applied in real life - to make life better. The SOLOist thinkers, on the other hand, seem more concerned about real-life applications of Objectivism than they are about semantical battles and religious faith.

Remember: The ideas of Rand are more important than her words. (I think that's a brilliant thing i've said rght there - quote me on that one!!)

Thanks,

Chanda.

p/s: how do i join this group? is there a fee?

Post 71

Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 5:43am

No fee Chanda; just good input like yours is all SOLO needs.

Thank you so much for your thoughts on this thread related to my article.

Cheers,
Chris Sciabarra

Post 72

Friday, July 25, 2003 - 1:51am

Chanda,

The forums are open to you for discussions. You can also submit articles (check out information on the Credo page). Further, for anyone who wants to get more involved in SOLO, please write me and let me know. There's many different ways you can get involved.

Post 73

Friday, February 13, 2004 - 3:12pm

I found this page while looking for research information and was floored by the amount of time spent arguing these points.

Didn't anyone else just read Ayn Rand's books because they were wonderful books? I could see her meanings but chose to continue with my own beliefs. Objectivism does not have to be a pattern of being against everything for which the rest of society stands. It can be looking at all information objectively, making a decision, and going on with one's life. Ayn Rand's wanting to keep Objectivism closed simply demonstrates her understanding that it would not work in the real world, as with the eccentricities of many other talented artists. Starting little clubs, groups, and movements based on the ideas of an author, even such a great one, seems frivilous. Come back to the real world.

Post 74

Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 10:41am