RoR: Forum

Post 20

Friday, December 13, 2002 - 8:56am

Link

Edit

My Dear Anthony,

1. If you can accept that Athena or Minerva can be interpreted as a source of individualism, that's all I ask for, so let's stop talking about Greek and Roman mythology.

2A. Nothing made me go-off at all, just that it seemed to me (and I may have been wrong) that you were overstressing too directly the historical part while neglecting individualism. On the other hand I was reacting to your use of the words "common sense of life Rand shared with other thinkers". And you seemed intent of finding direct links, and I was trying to suggest that you do not even need these to make your point. So I wanted to explain the alternate method, which I realise I have not fully done. It's a question of navigating between Scylla and Charibdes. (Oops! here comes mythology again!).

2B. The history part is especially suited for what Chris was looking at: methodology. I do think methodology is largely aquired from one's teachers, therefore Rand did learn it. This is why I said in an earlier post that it gives you THE FRAME or the skeleton. Remember the part about the bones of the Saints?

2C. "Sense of life" is, in my view, at the opposite end of the spectrum. It is what is most unlikely to have been the result of influence. Here we are as near the core of individualism as is possible to enter. Therefore, in your article, which I have not read so I do not know, if you use Chris as a model, I mean specifically the history emphasis, I do not think it will be to your best advantage. You need to lean more on individualism. The question becomes, where do you get it? Since you cannot find it in books etc. Individualism only exists in living individuals whereas history exists in books, etc.

2D. I expalined in a post, which I accidentally erased before posting, where you get individualism. It was long and I was very frustrated, and I have to re-do it tonight. But I would really like you to venture a guess in the meantime.

3. You could not have read the Wright biographies without finding Gurdjieff. But I will be happy to bet you a dinner on this. We will see who has the last laugh. The terms must be well established by a neutral arbiter, because you are very sneaky and do not admit defeat easily. I say we ask Chris to be the judge.

4. You say you don't care what Rand said about Jesus. Qua Rand scholar I am afraid you HAVE to care about EVERYTHING she said. I start not with "direct mystical connection" (whatever that means) but with Rand's statements about Jesus, which is what is significant in terms of Rand scholarship. Personally you can not care about any of this but Rand's statements cannot be we dismissed so casually with an I-don't-care.

5. You seem to concede that individualism did exist prior to Augustine yet you bring up RM. It is contradiction which should be solved. What do you propose? I promise to respond.

6. I will write a little more later

CHEERS!

Post 21

Friday, December 13, 2002 - 12:16pm

Link

Edit

Thanks Philip:-)

I wanted to respond mostly to 2B. 1. is a dead issue, and 2c-6 are under construction:-) The really important question is, 2b, or, not 2B. Indeed that is the question! :-) I am not certain that everything that is learned in the course of an individual's intellectual development is learned from a teacher/guru in the direct and physical manner you suggest. I mean, there are plenty of examples in history where intellectuals were say, 50% directly involved with their guru/mentor/spiritual master, and 50% book learned. How about 90/10 as well? In the case of Rand, some would say that Lossky had NO impact at all on her intellectual development. Chris supports the idea that she must have been impacted in at least SOME way by Lossky or other important teachers that imparted methodology. I see your agreement with him on this and I agree as well.

Back up to 2A.:

In order to present my case (and the article I refer to is this one that you have read!) I did not use this appeal to "methodology" and I think I would be far up the stream without a paddle if I tried to make that case. Imagine stating that Ayn Rand, Oscar Wilde, and Wright all derived their aesthetics from John Ruskin. :-) I do not have the detailed scholarship that Chris has (sorry for talking about you in the third person Chris, but you seem to like threes):). In fact his explanation of Rand's aesthetics relies on sources altogether different from my own. He sees the Russian Silver Age poets (Symbolists like Blok) as having an impact on her own. She acknowledged that she liked Blok too. She also acknowledged that she liked Wright and Oscar Wilde. You say in 2A that I insist on finding direct links that support my case. I openly admit that it was a series of footnotes on "theoria" that I traced from a scholarly edition of Oscar Wilde's Oxford Notebooks and another quote from Jack Wheeler's essay on Rand's ethics (The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand, DenUyl Rasmussen). The connection was valid, and it drove me on to explore more. I soon realized that one of the major aestheticists of the nineteenth century (Ruskin) had offered "theoria" as an alternative to the hedonistic impressionism of the art for art's movement.

You seem to think that I am merely overemphasizing the historical references and not noting Rand's individual contributions. You misinterpret what I wrote about "sharing a sense of life". I did not mean that they had the same sense of life. I know I have to be careful here though because it sounds like borrowing the word "weltanschauung" or "worldview" and these are not Objectivist concepts either.

By "sense of life" I mean what she said that she shared: "I must emphasize that I am not speaking of concretes, nor of politics, nor of journalistic trivia, but of that period's "sense of life".

A period, according to Ayn Rand, can have a sense of life, and those who live in their time can have it and share it. So, for Rand, a "sense of life" can be applied to a culture AND to an individual!! Not in the Hegelian or Hippolyte Taine constructs "Welt Geist" or "esprit du temps", but in a more primary sense. Qu'en penses tu? I'm so glad for this discussion!

Cheers to you too!

Post 22

Friday, December 13, 2002 - 12:28pm

Link

Edit

Philippe,

Paragraph three has this sentence: "I did not mean that they had the same sense of life". It should be:

"I did not mean that they had the same "sense of life" in the metaphysical sense with all of the conceretes exactly the same."

Don't forget that Rand used the term "sense of life" as an abstraction and in the context of describing a culture. Both uses are valid, it is sufficient to explain in what context we are using the term.

Post 23

Friday, December 13, 2002 - 5:28pm

Link

Edit

Dear Anthony,

I was all along talking about the FUTURE article which you gave us a glimpse of. The sentences which led me to beleive in its existence are: 'What I hope to show...' and "I am going to reveal..." These occur at the beginning of this exchange / book. As far as the current article I did not have any quarrel with it at all. On the contrary (and protest all you want) I think it supports my arguments about Rand being a mystic to a tee. That is why I liked it to begin with, and I said so.

Now I don't know what to write because I am not sure what the use of finishing 2B and 2C are anymore... For the sake of argument I will pretend you are writing a future article. (You see how much better fiction is?).

I agree with you about intellectual development. You can learn almost only by books or a combination of books and teachers or almost all by teachers, and by yourself without books and teachers, just by observing. There is an infinite variety. But "intellectual development" is a wider term than "methodology" and I (not you, I know) was specifically stressing methodology. The same applies to learning methodology and intellectual development more or less but methodology is like language and each methodology is a kind of very advanced language or technique. By it's very nature, like language, it is learned mainly by memorization and imitation and finally by comprehension. By contrast you can develop your intellect by reading novels, but you do not have to memorize or imitate, you can just enjoy and subconciously accumulate influences. These are called B influences in the other language I speak .

(I speak Objectivism and another ism. I can translate from one to the other. In the other langauge we have three words for influence: A influence, B influence and C influence. Objectivism has one word for all three so no exact one word translation is possible.)

Also, the object of methodology is to "speak" the same "language" as a group of people--to share a common method, like the ("scientific method of Galileo" for instance) and the language exists before you learn it. We can talk about the invention of languages too, but this is precicely what Ayn Rand did not do and was consciously AGAINST DOING. It is for this reason (I think) that she said "I am against the use of neologisms." So Chris wrote a book which said Rand's method-language was the one of Silver age Russian intellectuals (dialectics). I agreed with this and the only thing I disagreed with was that this method-language was particulary unique to Silver-age Russia or Marx. I thought that it was much more universal and that it could be found virtually everwhere and not only in dialectics. I was wrong on this issue, I have since come to beleive that it is a rare thing actually. But I do think I am still right in the sense that it exists elswehere and well before Marx. But this did and does not affect the important part of Chris's book, namely the idea that Rand did learn and the general exploration of where and who in fact she learned it from, and that Marx and dialectics was very important to her own thinking.

Futhermore, this is why I said that Chris's purpose was well served by looking for historical influences, since at bottom he was looking for the pre-existing laguage which Rand learned to speak, just as if he were looking for a Russain dictionary.

Now if we pretend you are going to write about the "sense of life" of Ayn Rand and Oscar Wilde, etc. Then we have a very different problem because it is not a learned thing like a language and you cannot put your finger on sense of life as you can on dialectics. Now you are right to say that sense of life is not used by Rand in a fully individual sense since she uses it to describe a culture. But notice that Rand, who never likes "the mystical" claim that things are ineffable actually resorts to this kind of explaining when she talks about "The incommunicable sense of life...of the XIXth cent" that she caught a glimpse of. Remember I am on the mouintain with no books so this is not the exact quote. I do remember the word "incommunicable" though. And she does develop the incommunicable idea to some extent. This is a sign to me that sense of life for Rand is intensely if not exclusively, individual and inextricably tied to the axiom of self. this means that history cannot help you in the direct was which it helps you when you look for method.

Futhermore you should find the 'incummunicable" stuff right next to the RM quote you posted to the extent that you probably came across it when you recently looked at it to post it.

Now the question was also where to find the individuality and you think I say you find it by stressing Rand's individuality. Well first of all I think all attempts I have read so far which attempt this fail miserably because at bottom you cannot define an axiom. You can only FEEL it by reading her books etc. Or if youmet her you would get a 'strong electric impression' as some have reported. Notice that this too is a feeling. Even if you find that Rand was the first to say this or that it does not help because finding something first is a product of the individualism, not the individualism itself. And besides you can be individual without discovering anything at all. So a quest for the individuality of Rand is just as useless as is history.

Both history and Rand's individuality have to be adressed nonetheless, but they can only become fertile if a THRID element is introduced, and this is the KEY to the whole problem. What is the THIRD element? Let's see if the "dialectical method" will help you. I will write tomorrow about the third element, I wanted to say it tonight but now I have said enough. Don't write a long answer to the above, just send short guess about the third element and I will see what it is. One word will suffice--this is a clue. I will tell you the answer no matter what tomorrow morning.

Post 24

Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 4:25am

Link

Edit

Hey Anthony, are you going to tell me your guess about the third element or do we stop here?

Post 25

Monday, December 16, 2002 - 3:33am

Link

Edit

Just one tiny note: It is true that I trace the immediate presence of dialectics to Silver Age Russian intellectuals and writers---as it was their overwhelming "method-language" as Philippe puts it. However, I do argue in TOTAL FREEDOM (and suggest in RUSSIAN RADICAL) that this dialectical orientation is, in fact, much more universal, and that it can be found virtually everywhere---to the extent that people engage in context-keeping (and all that this entails: shifting perspectives, dynamic and systemic examination, etc.) And I view Aristotle as the father of dialectical inquiry (the first chapter in TF is entitled, appropriately, "Aristotle: The Fountainhead"). This is not to say that it can't be found in other philosophical modes (like, for example, Eastern philosophy), or that dialectics can't be found in pre-Aristotelian Greek thinkers. But Aristotle is the first ~theoretician~ of dialectics, which makes him its daddy. (So maybe we can call Socrates and Plato the great-grand and grand-daddies of the enterprise; except it is Aristotle who disconnects that enterprise from the idealist Platonic ontology.)

Cheers,
Chris

http://www.nyu.edu/project/sciabarra/update.htm

Post 26

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 4:47am

Link

Edit

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your comments. I suppose Anthony is busy with school. I will wait for him before explaining where to get individualism.

I want for now to address what you brought up about what you said was the REAL question: how much can we question, what is left tacit, how much is or is not the result of our will as opposed to history. This is an area of debate which has a long intellectual history but which is not developed in Rand. For Rand, man has will and that is a fact, it is "man's nature". We are left with the general impression that each man (except the mentally insane, and sick, etc.) has the same faculty of will. Yet (many if not most) other intellectual systems speak of DEGREES OF WILL and of man's capacity to increase his will power by certain types of exercises; just as certain exercises develop muscular capaticy. The result is that they recognize that THERE ARE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF MAN and these categories are established by classifying men by the degree (power) of their individual will. Just as we can classify men by their ability or inability to lift a certain amount of weight.

So for example, for a man with very little will, the name "man of bonze" is given. For man with more will (more capacity to question) the name "man of silver" is given. For someone like Ayn Rand, who we see can question much more than the common "man of bronze," the name "man of gold" is given. Some systems recognize up to seven divisions. Some psychologists say the term "angel" refers to such a division of man. An "angel" being, in this case, a man which has a great capacity of will, more than the ordinary.

Now, if we connect this with your question, the result is that men of different will capacities will have differing abilities in every domain, including the "ability to question." Your question, like Objectivism, seems to assume that the SAME or almost the same ability exists in all men. Therefore if we knew what that ability was, we could see how much was the result of history (determinism) as opposed to the result of the man himself--individualism). Determinism by denying will, would ascribe all man's actions and thoughts to his pre-determined history. Individualism, by denying differing will capacities, ascribes the same "nature" the same "will" to all men.

I think Rand, being of one of the highest will categories in any system you choose to categorize, mis-projected her own tremendous capacities to "all men" and dismissed their shortcomings as their conscious refusal to use the capacity (which they largely did not have)and which she largely had from birth along with her own early efforts, which gave her tremendous "will-muscle-mass" very early. This is especially evident in her pre-Fountainhead thinking. Later on we see in increasing recognition that she sees that some men are different from other men. The culmination is in "The missing link." The idea of the conceptual and anti-conceptual mentality, which is an attempt to establish such categories.

This whole debate is huge when we include biology, cognitive science, etc. So I will only point out that IF there are different categories, then the question cannot be resolved as you formulated. The attempt would tend to include all men in one description of will capacity, which would not fit and lead nowhere, which is where we are today, swinging violently between determinism and free will.

Going back to earlier posts to Anthony, here is an illustration: Rand sits in Lossky's class and out of the lecture material formulates her views on a, b, and c. The views she formulates are in the terms (the method-language) of her teacher. She takes pleasure at reversing Lossky's arguments and words, or turning the argument on it's head, so to speak. She questions 1 and 2, leaves tacit 3 and 4. Natasha, her cousin and classmate and since kindergarten, who is a "man of bronze" memorizes as much as she can. This is all she can do. She formulates nothing and leaves everything tactit. She has just enough "will" to focus and memorize and regurgitate to pass but not enough to formulate and question.

As you must know the Greek Orthodox church has long had manuals for increasing man's capacity for will...(the Philokalia)

Post 27

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 7:24pm

Link

Edit

Hi Chris and Philippe!

Boy have I been missing out. You are right Philippe, it's exam time and I have been cracking the whip on myself:) I also was in California over the weekend (no, not in Marina, in Luna Niguel)I have found your latest posts very engaging. I have long been intrigued by the notion of a "sense of life" and always noted the "incommunicability" of such a subjective term. It seems to have originated in the nineteenth century since it permeates much of the philosophy that began in the German Aufklarung and spread quickly throughout Europe. I've seen the term translated into French by Senancour in "Obermann", Madame de Stael, and in Victor Hugo as well. In fact reading French literature of the Romantic period is perhaps a lesson about "sense of life", no wonder Rand saw it IN the culture!!

For the origin of Rand's use of this term I am reluctant to go directly to the Germans. Her disagreement with the Hegelians, the phenomenologists, and the neo-Kantians (like Windelband) was pecisely over the subjectivism. I tend to disagree with Michelle and Lou in "What Art is". They suggest that her source may have been either Ortega ("ensayos sobre el amor") or Unamuno ("el sentido tragico de la vida"). How deeply Ortega was INFLUENCED by the German neo-kantians is something we may read from Ortega's own bio. He studied at Marburg under Windelband, Wundt, and also with Dilthey.

What I find interesting is that Ortega studied under Wilhelm Windelband (Marburg) and Dilthey at the same time as Lossky. I stress that the origin of this term "sense of life" came from an aesthetico-metaphysical context, and that it was developed in the nineteenth century with several different variants. Unlike Michelle and Lou, I attribute the origin of Rand's "sense of life" to an Aristotelian ethical term "theoria". I think that this concept influenced all of the Europeans, and that Rand was merely keeping a very familiar cultural concept alive into the twentieth century. It is Rand's connection to the nineteenth century aesthetics that makes twentieth century philosophers and aestheticists misread her or misunderstand her. Many of the older connections between ethics and aesthetics were lost with the waning of enlightenment thinking. When Ayn Rand speaks of an Aristotelian "sense of life" permeating nineteenth culture and petering out toward the beginning of the twentieth, could she possibly have meant the contemplative life, the life of theoria?

I think also that the relationship between ethics and aesthetics has been improperly understood by many Objectivists who want to perhaps over-stress the role of morality in artistic products. I think a balnce is needed. For Rand the essence of morality lies in the individual, and artistic creativity is a strong excerise of individuality. The sanctity of the "I" that you read and testify from mysticism is also central to Objectivism.

As for your third "I" :) I have not guessed it yet, Oh Geenie. Perhaps if we rub you the right way we will get an answer. I apologize to anyone who may be reading these posts and waiting patiently for 3-4 days to get the answer. hehehe Tomorrow is my last exam (I'm ready) and I'll be writing more this weekend. I anticipate your response with great pleasure Philippe.

Post 28

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 5:39am

Link

Edit

Actually, Philippe, I agree with you: I don't think that one can make sweeping generalizations about what is or is not "tacit" or "articulate" because I do not believe that every person functions in exactly the same way. But I also do not think that every form of individualism describes men as equal in capacity to distinguish between the tacit-articulate divide. I think that Rand's notion of individualism is heavily dependent on her own developed notions of contextualism, and as you point out in your post, she goes a long way, in her later writings, toward grasping the differing ways in which people are encouraged---or discouraged---to augment their will (a la "The Comprachicos"). That's why I place so much emphasis on what I call a "tri-level model" of power relations when I conceptualize Rand's method of dealing with social problems. It is much more complex and "agent-relative"---but that makes Rand's individualism that much richer.

And Anthony: fascinating about Ortega... the cross-pollination going on in intellectual history during that period is just remarkable. Keep up the investigation!

Cheers,
Chris

Post 29

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:21pm

Link

Edit

Chris,

Let me get this straight here. I was writing this without consulting my history books. Lossky, as you note in ARRR, received his Magisterdissertation in Leipzig 1903 (Die Grundlagen der Psychologie vom Standpunkt des Voluntarismus) and his Doktordissertation (Die Grundlegung des Intuivismus) in 1907 (also Leipzig). He had gone to Germany and studied in various cities and came into contact with Wundt (Leipzig), Muller (Gottingen), and Windelband (Strassburg). I think that these students made their rounds to see all the great philosophers of the day, and the professors moved around as well.

Jose Ortega y Gasset (1833-1955) went to Leipzig to study in 1905. His area of study being Comparative Philology. He came increasingly interested in experimental psychology. He was undoubtedly influenced by Wundt as historians attest. He only remained at Leipzig for one semester and returned to Madrid to compete for a government stipend. When he returned to Germany, he studied in Berlin, and then went to Marburg (1906-1907).

I suppose if I did a little more research I could find them attending lectures together under Wundt or Windelband.

Post 30

Friday, December 20, 2002 - 4:14am

Link

Edit

Sounds fascinating, Anthony. This whole period was rich with intellectual cross-pollinatin, so none of it surprises me. And when you consider that Lossky, for example, learned from Windelband, and that Windelband's HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY was one of the ~prime~ texts recommended by Peikoff (in THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER), there is a kind of full-circle irony here.

Keep me posted...

Cheers,
Chris

---
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
---

Post 31

Friday, December 20, 2002 - 8:30pm

Link

Edit

Hello Chris and Anthony,

Chris, I do agree with you that individualisms vary in their treatments of the "tacit-articulate divide." We see this even within Libertarian thinking, since some Libertarians are determinists, or more determinist than others. The systems that use different categories for "man" are often systems of individualism too. Simply, they do not see "all men" as individuals. Furthermore, they fully would (and do) agree with the determinists when it comes to 'man of Bronze'. Man of bronze by definition cannot be an individual. But the determinists think 'all men' are 'men of bronze' = detemnined, while these systems recognize that there are other types of man who are not.

But it is NOT a question of variations within a norm, or "standard deviations," which I think most everybody accepts. It's a question of differences so radical that it's literally a question of a different SPECIES. I had discussed this with Barbara Branden and she said something very intriguing. She said she had often wondered and still wonders, whether Rand was not literally a different species. She said her intellectual superiority was so overwhelming that the feeling of being in the presence of a radically different type of human was very strong. I reminded her that the modern definition of species revolved around the compatibility of a given pair for having viable offspring. She said she would challenge that definition. In other words she would find another criterion along different lines.

Now Anthony, we seem to have switched from Rand or Wilde's personal "sense of life" to the etymology (the history) of "sense of life" as an idea. In the latter case you can go by way of history of course. There is no other way. The ideal would be to find a definition of "sense of life" which matches Rand's and which Rand might have adopted.

It is, of course, for the other idea, the idea of the similarity of Rand's and Wilde's personal senses of life that the mystery element is axiomatic.

Post 32

Friday, December 20, 2002 - 9:46pm

Link

Edit

Also, Anthony, you mentioned Rand's speaking of the Aristotelian sense of life in the XIXth century. Two approaches are involved here. One is the actual sense of life of the XIXth (the attidudes and predominant emotional tones) and the other would be the philosophic idea of sense of life in general as formulated by writers of the XIXth. For example, if Unamuno has personally a 'tragic' sense of life, Rand has an 'opimistic' sense of life. Both uses of the term are the same and perhaps rooted in the Aristotelian meaning of contemplation, or definitions prevalent in the XIXth, but two different and opposed and conflicting sets of emotions are involved.

I always supposed Rand was referring to the actually dominant sense of life of the XIXth which she beleived that Aristotle also had personally, namely the emotions and feelings that come along with confidence in the power of reason, science, intellect. I thought she was painting the emotional portait of Aristotle and saying that the same emotions dominated the XIXth. I found it quite strange when I read it (in a neutral way, not "bad"), one of the strangest things that Rand does because it is as if she could "channel" Aristotle. Myself no amount or reading Aristotle has revealed to me the slightest clue about what he was like personally, but with this RM stuff I have kept a rather incongruous image of Aristotle smiling gaily and drinking champagne on a boulevard in the Paris of the Belle Epoque. It is the first book of hers that I read so I might not be remembering correctly. Let me know. I am still in the mountains.

But you seem to be suggesting something rather different, namely that the philosophic idea of sense of life of the XIXth was borrowed from Aristotle. When we factor in the time lag between making philosophy and cultural atmosphere it later fosters I think it becomes problem in what you are suggesting, because if the XIXth's PHILOSOPHY reintroduces Aristotle the results of that reintroduction would only trickle down much later, in the XXth.

The 'incommunicableness' if the XIXth's sense of life is not in the definition or explanation of the term "sense of life" which is perfectly definable and is most certainly not an axiom. The incommunicablenesss is in the actual cultural atmosphere, in trying to PICTURE Aristotle giggling from the bubbly so to speak... just as it is in the unfathomableness of the individual's personal sense of life. On the premise of philosophic-determinism (which is wide open to challenge, I agree), the XIXth's cultural atmosphere's philosophic antecedents would be found philosophically formulated in the Enlightenment period. In other words, well before the XIXth century.

Post 33

Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:07am

Link

Edit

Hi Philippe,

I swear Philippe, you sound as if you were in the Himalayas:-) What's this stuff about Rand "channeling" Aristotle? HA Are you for real?

This is very interesting what you wrote about the different senses of a sense of life:

"but two different and opposed and conflicting sets of emotions are involved."

-and:

"But you seem to be suggesting something rather different, namely that the philosophic idea of sense of life of the XIXth was borrowed from Aristotle."

Are you suggesting Philippe, that Rand did not mean that the nineteenth century was fully aware of their debt to Aristotle? This is interesting because it is part of my research. I am tracking down the transmission of a core of Aristotelian thought in the nineteenth century. Sciabarra has illuminated the enormous debt nineteenth century philosophers owed to Aristotle for the use of the concept of "dialectic" (regardless of how differently they reshaped the concept). I have researched the tradition of Aristotle "commentaria" and I found that it was alive and well in the nineteenth century. In Germany and in England, scholars continued to comment heavily on the works of Aristotle and Plato just as they had done for centuries.

In fact, in England, Aristotle's NE was the single most translated work of the century. I think what Rand was saying has truth in the literal sense, that the philosophy was heavily indebted to Aristotle, and that the Aristotelian sense of life was a concommitant. I think she was wrong to say that the philosophy was not guided by Aristotle. But what is the Aristotelian "sense of life"? You see it as bubbly champagne? HA I see it as Rand's way of avoiding the statement that the nineteenth century was predominately bourgeois. Perhaps she knew that it was the middle class that maintained the balance in the late nineteenth century. You would never know this from the majority of the artists of that period. For them, "il faut epater les bourgeois" not sing their praises. Much the same thing was happening in England. Well you know the story. I think Rand saw this intellectual structure of steel that informed the philosophy, but saw the artists and the new intellectuals as letting go of it:

"The nineteenth century was guided, not by an Aristotelian philosophy, but by an Aristotelian "sense of life". (And, like a brilliant violent adolescent who fails to translate his sense of life into conscious terms, it burned itself out, choked by the blind confusions of its overpowering energy.)" RM, 68

I think that was Rand the novelist, not Rand the historian:) Then again, when I study the impact of Aristotle's philosophy on nineteenth century Victorian England I see that it was specifically Aristotle's NE that provided the girding. The Victorians blended their Hellenism with Hebraism according to Matthew Arnold. The Philistines were the Dissenters, the protestants who scoffed at "sweetness and light" and upheld an outrageous code of puritanical ethics. This code of ethics was not derived from Aristotle.

Coming back to the sense of life. It may be valid to compare Aristotle's concept of "ethos" (character) to Rand's sense of life. Aristotle's "virtue ethics" is different from Rand's "principle orientation" which makes it difficult to know how much of an Aristotelian Rand really was. She did not consider Aristotle's Ethics to be his supreme achievement, but many scholars have seen the debt she owes to him. What do you think. I like what you said about my concentration on "theoria". I think that if Rand adopted any aspect of Aristotle's ethics, it was this.

Knowing that Ruskin was the principle proponent of this application of theoria to aesthetics, I ventured that Rand captured this not by reading Ruskin, by observing how Frank Lloyd Wright applied theoria to his architecture and to his general aesthetics. Wright learned it from Ruskin. What do you say?

Post 34

Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:34am

Link

Edit

Oh Boy Philippe!

I read what you said about Rand being a different species. I don't know how much of that is tongue in cheek.:-) I think that most Rand critics of the Jeff Walker type would have a blast with that one:) Yes a mutant species. Now presenting "the Arians" (the reporter is Japanese, thus "aryans" and not "aliens") :-)

Ayn Rand and her spawn of Randroids! HA When you consider the fact that I am trying desperately to situate Rand within a historical context,its bloody impertinent of you to make a cut-out doll of her or turn her into a comic strip heroine:) THE NERVE:-)

Post 35

Monday, December 23, 2002 - 4:42pm

Link

Edit

Chanelling should not surprise you. This is what Marguerite Yourcenar did to Hadrian, and coutless other writers have done throughout the centuries. It is a legitimate method. Rand used to even channel Galt according to her biographers. The Branden's speak of her speaking about them as if they were real entities, which I am sure they were in some sense. What do you call that? Channeling seems to be a valid word to describe such phenomena, especially when we remember that neologisms (the invention of new Gods) is forbidden to the Randians, as it was forbidden to Socrates. What word would you propose?

Rand would be much happier in a comic strip as a heroin, than in the dust of history... The idea that "man" can be subdivided into different types is so old and so prevalent and the idea that "all men are equal" is so new so rare and so silly, if you ask me, that this last is what should surprise you...

Cheers

As for the XIXth century, I will have to reread the relevant essays to answer definitively.

Post 36

Tuesday, December 24, 2002 - 8:09am

Link

Edit

Hi Philippe! Merry Christmas!

If by channeling you mean the process of sustaining an imaginary dialogue with a historical figure, then that is legit. I see what you mean about Yourcenar and Hadrian. What a wonderful writer she was!! It's funny, I came across a website one day that was about how a medium had channeled Oscar Wilde and spoke with his voice in a seance:-) It was interesting that the voice did nothing but quote bits of Wilde's aphorisms and prose. HA! Still I guess it serves as some kind of titilation. You don't have to defend your use of words, I was just having fun with you.

The work of a critic is much more imaginative. The work of a scholar should be much more accurate and cite references. I think that Chris is a perfect blend of scholar and critic. I don't know how he would classify himself, but the range of his ideas is very broad and he can appeal to many audiences, provoking them to dig deeper in areas they might not normally even entertain. People have different visions of how these roles should work: scholar, critic, philosopher, literary artist. Do you recognize the difference between the work of a scholar, a critic, and a literary genius? I think that Rand and Wilde were both really creative artists. While Wilde was the artist as critic, Rand was the artist as philosopher.

Post 37

Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 5:26pm

Link

Edit

Philippe!

I am going to be the one to post this. But it is only thanks to you for pointing it out to me. I don't know where else Rand speaks of the self as axiomatic so specifically. I mean once I read this passage I started seeing how it was expressed in everything she wrote. It came screaming off of the pages as the scales fell from my eyes. Well, this gentile has been converted:-) with regard to Rand anyway. Here goes:

Ayn Rand: "The consciousness of self is implicit in [any grasp] of consciousness."

Prof. D: "Is the concept of "self" something abstracted from a content of consciousness?"

AR: "No, The notion of "self" is an axiomatic concept; it's implicit in the concept of "conscious"; it can't be separated from it."

quoted from "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", Ayn Rand pb, 252

Post 38

Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 3:15pm

Link

Edit

So now you see the face of the Objectivist God, this God that later Objectivists have sought (but apparently never found) since Objectivism came into being, this God that might give them joy and peace and pride... but helas!

Now if you reread carefully the whole dialogue you will notice that I asked you to think of a reason why this very important piece of Objectivism is practically ignored, forgotten and unknown by the Elders. Can you give a good explanation? Think hard. Good luck.

Post 39

Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 4:08pm

Link

Edit

Oh, and by the way Ant, welcome to the Inner Sanctuary, the Holy of Holies of Objectivism.

I will Randize you by dunking you in the Hudson river when I next come up... it will only be a Randizing by water, but he who comes after me will Randize by fire!