RoR: Forum

Michael,

Thanks for the respect.

Linz,

Precisely how was Rand's critique of Rawls & Kant rendered less potent or accurate because she didn't read every word they wrote?

On Kant, the inaccuracy was obvious. She claimed that there were no definitions in the CPR. WRONG, Unbelievably wrong.

Second, the "every word they wrote" demand is a false alternative. The alternative isn't read nothing or everything. There is a great deal of space between those two. I haven't read "every" word Kant wrote but I've read a hell of a lot, enough to keep me from making bone-headed claims. Well, maybe less bone-headed claims about the master of those who critique.

"Understand, I'm asking this question re the content of her critique, not the methodology"

Problem is, I was making both a methodological and a substantive point. She was wrong about the absence of definitions (content) because she didn't read (enough of) the book (methodology).

"Vile Academe?!"

To whom does this apply? To all people in academe, including Objectivists like me, Gotthelf, Lennox, Smith, Mayhew etc.?? Clarify please.

Fred the Kantinating Objectivist

Post 61

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 8:08am

Fred,

I hope you do your article on four recent translations of Aristotle. I would enjoy reading it.

Thanks,

b

Post 62

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 11:27am

It seems people are arguing at cross-purposes here.

One group is saying that Rand was wrong to engage in sloppy scholarship, and the other group is saying that she was correct and could forego scholarship.

However, Lance pointed out already that she starts with:

"Let me say that I have not read and do not intend to read that book. But since one cannot judge a book by its reviews please regard the following discussion as the review of a review. Mr. Cohen's remarks deserve attention in their own right."

So she has explained in advance that she is discussing these ideas based on a review and NOT engaging in a scholastic excersize in criticism of the original work.

There is no reason to question her methodology by scholastic standards based on her own admission and we all agree that her CONCLUSIONS were indeed correct.

So what is the problem here?

Post 63

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 11:42am

Great post Marcus, clear as glass. We should all have taken a look at the source, and saved ourselves the angst.

Post 64

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 11:55am

Right on, Marcus. She staked out her territory at the get-go. She shouldn't be blamed for the article she didn't write.

Post 65

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 11:18am

Robert wrote:
>The why not may be that to quote Kant you would have to do so in German. To quote him in English would depend upon the translation you were using. Any English quotes would be paraphases.

Of course, *any number* of excuses may be found for the fact she doesn't quote him. So far these have ranged from: a mysterious ability to see the whole structure of someone's philosophy in just a tiny sample, to the extremely odd idea that if you write polemically you don't need to provide any evidence for your case - finally descending down to "well, she was *awfully* busy..." And perhaps the dog ate her copy of the "Critique of Pure Reason"?

That's why the better question is: *what is the quality of Rand's case, by the usual objective standards*? For example, one of the most fundamental of all standards of justice is the right of the accused to speak for himself. Yet in making her case, Rand conspicuously prevents this from happening, offering as evidence only her own interpretations - and these are not only minus supporting quotes, but mostly minus *any solid reference* at all! (Unless you count "..see the works of Kant and Hegel" as solid reference! And no, reference-free paraphrase be cannot be described as "translation" either!).

Imagine: you are trying the worst villain in mankind's history, but then appeal to the jury that you are too busy to present any of his actual testimony! Or that your own penetrating insight is such that you didn't really need to anyway! At best, this would be complete prosecutorial ineptitude; at worst, a show trial. There is no third alternative. So therefore our only rational choice is to throw "Rand vs Kant" out of court.

- Daniel

Post 66

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 12:24pm

Who the fuck cares whether Rand read Kant or not! I sure as hell don't. It does not matter - zero, zilch, nada !!!

Linz, and everyone else. The, "did Rand read Kant or not" argument is an absolute straw-man argument. Its purpose is to evade the central questions, those being; is Kantian philosophy sufficiently compatible with Objectivist philosophy to be considered a proto-objectivism of some form. Or, is Kantian philosophy so diametrically incompatible with objectivism that the two lay for the most part as wholly antithetical to each other.

One method is to take a look at what were the results within societies that tried to incorporate facets of the two philosophies in their society. Objectivism has contributed towards Libertarianism and influenced the platforms, agendas, and philosophies of others by adding an element of individual rights orientation. The Kantian legacy is one adopted by some of the most despotic forms of governments ever created by man, and its influence in other social areas has been towards altruism and collectivism in general. Nothing exposes the true �spirit� of a philosophy better than the practical results of its application when removed from the theoretical to the actual.

The issue is one of comparing the essentials of Kantian metaphysics, epistemology, and morals to those of objectivism � the essentials only. Whatever valid comparisons can be made are only within the context of the non-essentials of the two philosophies. The Kantian equivalent of Rand�s �objectivism while standing on one foot� quickly reveals a philosophy that stands in direct contradiction to objectivism. A philosophy steeped in relativism and subjectivism. A literal slap in the face to Objectivist - stop turning the other cheek gentlemen, you're being far too Christian with the Kantian bastards!

Rand�s ultimate verdict of Kantian philosophy does not lay within anything she actually said on Kant or his ideas, but in the creation of Objectivism; - Objectivism - the ultimate refutation of Kantian mysticism and proto-fascism. To those that advance the ideas of this philosopher version of Stalin, I realize that you can�t help but defend this snail of a man; after all it�s your duty to do so, and a proper selfless act. On this issue, I hold you in the utter contempt that you have earned. And to paraphrase from a famous line stated by Ayn Rand herself, "to those that espouse any part of Kant�s philosophy � metaphysical, epistemological or moral � you deserve it."

Let us not allow ourselves to become ensnared in academic parlor games, played by men that already know better. We have already given them far too much leeway to soil objectivism with this claptrap, let us not allow ourselves to be soiled as well. That any of this bullshit is being taken seriously is saddening, that it has reached the point were it is a topic of discussion at objectivist seminars is disgusting.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/01, 1:15pm)

Post 67

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 3:43pm

One remark to your idea of incorporating ideas into political societies, called states:

Everyone claimed that some of the NAZI regime
s ideals were built on Nietzsche's Ubermensch, but this is totally utterly stupid, if you really read and UNDERSTAND him.
The NAZI, f.e., did only take those words from the context and used them in their "philosophy of life".
Nietzsche himself would have rejected anything like Facism or Socialism alike. He would only see them as new kind of moral systems to be imposed on him.

Also, the notion that if a state took an element of Kant's philosophy, would invalidate all of Kant's works is wrong. I think it is what Mr. Sciabarra tried to do with Marx and Rand and Dialectian ideas. Just because Marx ideas brought upon us the Soviet Republic, doesn't mean that all of Marx ideas are wrong or even evil. Only some conclusions Marx derived from his observations led to a doctrine that was utterly evil from start to its end (?!).

I don't want to defend all of Kant, especially not his epistemology or the moral system he made of it. But I also want to show that you can't denounce a philosophy if you claim to have not read one piece of it.
She might have gotten it right accidentially (the same with Rawls), but this doesn't make the whole judging process anymore precise and right.

I just want to make a point here, that we should see this critical and not dismiss it easily.

Post 68

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 6:18pm

Fred wrote a whole article about it. He mentioned it is his postings. Nobody has discussed it.

Rand got Kant wrong on the definition thing.

Anybody listening? That came from one who reads both.

Refutations anybody?

What I see going on now in this thread reminds me of a comment I read online by a communist talking about a Jehovah's Witness (sorry, I didn't write down their names):

"You can argue with one all day and even win the argument. But you won't get him to change his mind."

Michael

Post 69

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 6:39pm

I will preface this by saying I have had a bottle of wine, an exceptionally good chardonnay; hints of apple, pear, and vanilla.

I give George a standing ovation.

He hits importantly that Rand answered scholarly/philosophical critics by establishing her philosophic vision.

And as much as I love scholars they tend to be extremely weak in normative abstractions i.e. concluding what the next step should be based on the factual info. I think there is some paraphrase appropriate: stick to your footnotes professors.

�There simply are different requirements for the (1) teacher, (2) the scholar, (3) the serious intellectual, or (4) those simply not interested in any other philosopher except Rand.� Seddon.

Notice that Fred cannot conceive of a �creator�, it is missing from his list of people interested in philosophy. I submit that it is simply because he and many other scholars don�t understand creation.

Fred also states: �I'm always impressed by anyone who reads the great philosophers but isn't in the field.�

And yet, he doesn�t seem to acknowledge his �impressiveness� with Peter Cresswell, others, or myself.

I shouldn�t be upset with scholars� lack of normative knowledge but it is hard to avoid when they are set on having opinions.

Mischievously,

Michael

Post 70

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 7:04pm

Kelly states and askes: "Fred wrote a whole article about it. He mentioned it is his postings. Nobody has discussed it.

Rand got Kant wrong on the definition thing.

Anybody listening? That came from one who reads both.

Refutations anybody?"

Michael you need to go back in some of the archives here...Cresswell has noteably hazed Seddon and I don't do a bad job myself...check out our postings or articles dealing with Kant. Fred talks a big game but, as with all things, read him and us carefully.

Michael

Post 71

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 7:18pm

Namesake,

All righty. I got some things to look up in the archives anyway. Linz got my nose open with that Rousseau comment. Fascinating...

Your post still doesn't sound like a refutation, though.

I don't know Fred personally. I certainly am no Groupie of anything academic. Been in Brazil too long.

But the man put it out there in this article and thread. Nobody answered. They all talked about other things (even me).

Am I missing something here?...

Michael

Post 72

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 7:35pm

M: Your post still doesn't sound like a refutation, though.

MN: Hahah, no it wasn�t just a not-so-flippant-poke-in-the-ribs sated comment.

M: I don't know Fred personally. I certainly am no Groupie of anything academic. Been in Brazil too long.

MN: In an Amazon waterfront on stilts? Welcome to/back to the States, strange place no?

M: But the man put it out there in this article and thread. Nobody answered�Am I missing something here?...

MN: YES!

Post 73

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 9:22pm

Robert: "She staked out her territory at the get-go. She shouldn't be blamed for the article she didn't write."

The problem is that she wasn't consistent about it, because from then on she spoke as if she were an authority on Rawls.

Do any of you care to imagine how you would react if someone did a review of a review of Rand -- say the Whittaker Chambers review -- and then spoke as if he were an authority on Rand?

Barbara

Post 74

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 1:00am

Barbara,

I've posed that question twice so far on this thread, and nobody has answered it yet. Perhaps the Majesty's magic touch will do the trick.

Alec

Post 75

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 3:24am

Sigh. The question has been answered, and the answer has not. The isssue is not how much Rawls or Kant Rand did or did not read. The issue is (for the zillionth time), was she right about them? (And I don't begin to understand why Mr. Cordero thinks it necessary to explain this to me.)

If Rand were confronted with a review of a review of Atlas where the reviewer of the review stated quite openly that he was reviewing a review, & the review of the review accurately depicted her ideas even while disagreeing with them, I'm sure she'd have had no problem with it. She'd have inferred that the first reviewer got it right & the second reviewer was reacting to an accurate depiction of ideas with which he disagreed. Throwing the Chambers review into the argument is just a red herring. Chambers got Rand completely wrong. The reviewer of Rawls whom Rand relied on got Rawls right, as then did Rand. I dare say Rand read, or listened to, a number of competent commentators on Kant, & reacted�rightly�to the themes that constantly came through: the noumenal/phenomenal split & the duty ethic.

I say again, it is nothing less than vicious�not to say inordinately presumptuous, & just plain stupid�to insist that her commentaries on these gentlemen were thereby diminished & she should have tortured herself by reading everything the bastards wrote. She had already gotten their measure. After that, she had better things to do. And, thank Galt, she did them. If the Groupies of Academe had had their way, she wouldn't have had time to do them.

Linz

Post 76

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 5:07am

Anybody can speak with authority on any subject they wish and still have their integrity intact. It is for you to decide as a "thinking individual with a mind" whether or not to take their opinion seriously.

Rand admitted in a published essay that she had not read and had no intention of reading Rawl's work. So, what is your problem with her speaking with authority? Who was she deceiving exactly?

PS:
This type of intellectual snobbery I find particularly disgusting. It's the return of the "incredible mystics amongst us". Those who want to judge a person by the length of their qualifications, rather than by the merit of their own words or actions.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 3/02, 6:01am)

Post 77

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 6:53am

Michael,

Another quote along those lines you might find useful is: A man can not be reasoned out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.

Post 78

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 7:01am

Barbara wrote:

>>The problem is that she wasn't consistent about it, because from then on she spoke as if she were an authority on Rawls.

What does that mean? Isn't this a subjective perception?

Post 79

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 11:46am