Ayn Rand Smeared Again

I can't speak for Campbell, but it's not clear enough for me. I'd like to see a real example about Rand, not an imaginary example about Aristotle. If you've never seen one, a hypothetical example would be better than nothing.

Peter

Post 421

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:24pm

Jon,

Not sure this is really worthy of comment, but there are no words equal to the task of expressing my disbelief that anyone on this forum would bother to claim that "she had to know" was any kind of argument at all. This is roughly equivalent to the use of "common sense" or "it stands to reason". Without further argument such claims are dead in the water.

I suppose the standard here is that we should take the Brandens at face value but not Rand's acceptance of or thanks for assistance.

As to the promise of a car, I would wager you have no idea what the context was for that comment in a personal letter. I can think of all sorts of benevolent contexts for that remark, including the expressed desire that she do just that, perhaps said seriously, perhaps in joking affirmation and support of her plans to be famous. It appears that benevolent interpretations of Ayn Rand's actions just elude you in light of the gospel according to the Brandens. From the photo, I would wager that benevolent interpretations are hard to come by in any context. After all, it stands to reason that one photo would tell the whole story of your relationship with the world, right? Hey man, it's just common sense!

Tom

P. S. As my photo clearly shows, I never get angry and have nothing but benevolent thoughts about everyone in the world. I must be flawless!!!

(Edited by Tom Rowland on 9/22, 12:42pm)

Post 422

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:29pm

Robert,

Once again, I will try "a more measured" response. "Legitimate, responsible" criticism of Objectivism is very hard to find, indeed, and, of course, it depends upon what you mean by a "critic." The real critics, many of whom I cite in my book, like Tuccille (that is, his recent work), Walker, and now our friend from COMMENTARY, and the like, do rely heavily on the Brandens -- if they often also embark on their own excursions into fantasy and distortion. Another "critic" I cite in my book, Chris Sciabarra, whatever one thinks of his work, belongs in completely different category. This is something I hope is also clear from my book.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 9/22, 12:43pm)

Post 423

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 12:44pm

I'm baffled.

Here's an exercise for Peter and Robert: Try to think of a criticism of Ayn Rand's philosophy that is NOT an ad hominem attack. I already know what this means. It is you guys who don't seem to know the difference, and I would love to be proven wrong about this. So give it a shot, guys. Remember, nothing about her supposed conceit, or alleged insensitivity, or bad cooking, or slovenly appearance -- just a criticism of her philosophy. Come on, you can do it -- even if you don't agree with the example. I already gave you an example of how this could be done with Aristotle so it should be easy enough to do.

Post 424

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:00pm

Here's one that somebody pointed out to me at a party when I was in college:

In Conservatism: An Obituary (reprinted in CUI), Rand takes up the conservative argument (due to Alexander Hamilton, I think) that, since people are limited in knowledge and capable of error and vice, limited government is appropriate. She then asks us to "grasp what this implies." That is, she says, that if people were not thus fallible, dictatorship would be appropriate.

This is a textbook example on Rand's part of the fallacy of Denial of the Antecedent: if P then Q; ergo, if not-P then not-Q. Another example, formally identical to the one in her speech, is: if you live in Nebraska, then you live in the United States; ergo, if you don't live in Nebraska you don't live in the United States.

I could give you a few others like this. They are small in comparison to her achievements and easy to extricate therefrom, but, like this one, they meet your conditions.

Peter

Post 425

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:15pm

Peter,

Great! I wish this was the form Rand criticism would take, as a rule. Conversely, if arguments about Aristotle and Marx devolved into comments about their personal lives to the extent that Rand criticism does, it would be a great shame -- and an indication that their ideas could not be argued with on their own merits.

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 9/22, 1:50pm)

Post 426

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:24pm

I could take issue with your example, Peter, but we could generate debate all day, of course, on several other issues. Casey, I think, is wondering about the major published Rand critics. And, in the context of this thread, I think he means to include the other identified forms of "Rand-bashing" as well.

Even so, Casey, we could call your attention to some academic critics who, though rare, have not relied on the Brandens. But the authors I mentioned and COMMENTARY-type articles that started this thread do otherwise seem to overwhelm all of this.

Post 427

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:41pm

Robert Nozick's On the Randian Argument comes to mind. I have my doubts about the soundness of his larger points (Eric Mack, I think, was the first to point out that death just won't do as a standard of value, so what follows from this supposition isn't an interesting question and isn't a problem for Rand), but it's criticism, it's academic and it's not ad hominem.

Peter

Post 428

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:06pm

OK, guys. Not all Rand criticism is ad hominem. I gotta laugh, since I never actually said all of it was ad hominem, but very well, to get us over the hump, let me officially sign my name to it. But I will say that the popularization of the ad hominem approach to Rand criticism exemplified by the latest issue of Commentary magazine has the very nasty effect of denying Rand the respect required to treat her ideas in a valid way. That is the insidiousness of the ad hominem attack -- after taking away respect for the person to such a degree (the description in Commentary is a farcical caricature of a lunatic hypocrite) makes it absurd to take that person's ideas seriously -- the very goal of the ad hominem approach. In Rand's case, the lies about Rand's character told by the Brandens give those who would use the ad hominem approach particular power, since Rand claimed to live by her philosophy. That's one of the reasons what they did makes me so angry, and why I spend my time on this.

(The following paragraph added post-post)

I hope everyone who has read or who hasn't read the Brandens' books reads PARC so that he or she can understand what was done to the image of Rand, where it originated, and know how to separate the truth from the smear. PARC makes Commentary a laughing stock for printing such rubbish and it's time that the denial of serious attention to Rand's ideas based on self-serving lies spun by two people who exploited her be challenged and consigned to the dustbin where they belong. Don't take my word for it. The evidence is in Valliant's book. The Brandens did something very damaging to Rand and those who admire her philosophy -- their little vicious vendetta against her memory for their own selfish (in the worst sense) motivations adds an ominous footnote to her legacy that demolishes everything she stood for. The Brandens' lies, while some claim they are inconsequential to Rand scholarship or commentary, add an ugly wink that says "but really there are no heroes, there is no perfection, humans are pompous and hypocritical to think otherwise, rationality is an illusion even in a mind as great as Rand's," etc., etc. They are the slouch under the tuxedo that hollows out her message and makes it no more than another other-worldly unattainable idealism that is the very opposite of everything Objectivism stands for.

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 9/22, 2:29pm)

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 9/22, 2:41pm)

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 9/22, 2:48pm)

Post 429

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:13pm

Tom,

You asked about the context of �No one helped me.� It is in the �About the Author� at the end of Atlas Shrugged, in my copy anyway, (which book she dedicated to both Nathaniel and Frank, again in my copy.)

I don�t know what you are going on about regarding the car. I am simply saying that her promise to buy them a fancy car once she�s rich is an acknowledgment that she owes them big. (Or it�s a brag that she�ll be very rich someday.) I take it as acknowledgement that she owes them big.

Why are you going on about my use of �she had to know�? I merely said she had to know she owed them big, because they were letting her live with them for an extended period. You are shocked that anyone on this forum would conclude that? I�m shocked that you are shocked. I�ve never done it, but if I ever let a young immigrant into my home for an extended period while they get on their feet and I feed their kibble hole�they darn well better know I�ve extended them kindness, I�ve helped them. �Help� in the usual sense. You seem to think that I use the car promise unbenevolently. I don�t know why you think such a thing. I use it as confirmation that she understood that they had helped her.

I eagerly await your response to all the shocking things in this post.

Jon

Edited to change �affirmation� to �confirmation.�

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 9/22, 6:08pm)

Post 430

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:24pm

Robert Campbell:
>Wouldn't it be a lot easier, and more effective in this kind of discussion, to identify an example of a legitimate or responsible criticism of Rand?

Peter Reidy:
>I'd like to see a real example about Rand...

This is very easy. The best criticism of Rand available in my view is Greg Nyquist's 'Rand Contra Human Nature', which I have only read recently. It is very thorough. Those interested may browse it for free here:

http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0%2D595%2D19633%2D0

(I see Fred Seddon responded to Nyquist some time ago in JARS, does anyone know if this is online anywhere?)

Casey:
>Try to think of a criticism of Ayn Rand's philosophy that is NOT an ad hominem attack.

Casey, I am trying to think of criticisms *by Ayn Rand of other philosophers* that are NOT quote-free, reference-free, facile ad hominems. I can't think of very many at all, can you?

- Daniel

Post 431

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:33pm

Daniel,

I can't think of any criticisms by Rand of other philosophers that were not about their philosophy. I can't think of her EVER saying something about their personal habits or behaviour as human beings.

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 9/22, 2:33pm)

Post 432

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:37pm

Jon,

Sorry if I misunderstood you, which I apparently did.

So am I right that you argument runs something like this.

She knew that they had helped her.
She knew that she owed them big.
She did in fact owe them big. (It was a net loss to them, a net gain to her. Not a trade, of course.)
So it must have been a sacrifice and altruistic. (No other way to read it, it seems)
So Casey's argument that it isn't help in the altruistic sense is fallacious.

Am I right?

Tom

(there is an important line from Rand's journals in Valliant's book regarding the superiority of giving love to receiving love that is relevant here. But the equivalent already exists in The Fountainhead. To say I love you, one must first say the I. The line from the Journals had a profound impact on my understanding of how twisted the "common sense" view of the entire issue of giving is. One could also reference Lillian's diatribes against Rearden's gifts as being motivated by his egoism. She's right!!!)

Post 433

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:14pm

Tom,

No one ever slit his or her throat for her�so no one ever helped her, altruistically, that is.

Have I got that right?

Jon

Post 434

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:19pm

Jon: No.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:49pm

Mr. Fahy,

Let me give a couple of examples. Do you think Rand was fair in her criticism of contemporary philosophers? Do you think that Rand at times exaggerated her originality?

I understand those critics of TOS who believe in a more robust defense of Rand and Objectivism, but the ARI approach that Rand was 100% correct in everything she said is somewhat extreme, don't you think?

Post 436

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 4:18pm

About the Author

[Second paragraph]

�I decided to be a writer at the age of nine, and everything I have done was integrated to that purpose. I am an American by choice and conviction. I was born in Europe, but I came to America because this was the country based on my moral premises and the only country where one could be fully free to write. I came here alone, after graduating from a European college. I had a difficult struggle, earning my living at odd jobs, until I could make a financial success of my writing. No one helped me, nor did I think at any time that it was anyone�s duty to help me.�

�I�ve been career-integrated since I was nine. I came here alone. I had a difficult struggle and no one helped me.�

Not bragging, not conceit. No, just a straightforward statement that no one sacrificed themselves for her.

As exact a writer that she was, would someone please explain to me why she didn�t write �No one sacrificed themselves for me�? In my dictionary, there is no reference to sacrifice under �help,� it simply means assistance. She had to know this (that�s for you, Tom) so why did she write �help� if she meant �sacrifice�? Casey has stated earlier that it�s clear she meant sacrifice because this statement follows a book that�s all about altruism and sacrifice. But that�s not the context of the paragraph. The context is her heroic early struggle. In context, therefore, �No one helped me� means, �no one provided assistance, �cause I didn�t need any, �cause I�m fuckin� awesome.�

I do her more justice in saying she was conceited at times, and this was one time, than do you guys who insist she didn�t know how to write.

And Tom, you�ve said there is such a thing as justifiable conceit�I agree. She had just written a great book, she was on a high, it�s perfectly understandable and justifiable�*it�s not even a big deal.* That�s why it�s so sad to see smart people bending over backwards to save themselves from saying she was conceited here.

Regarding *who* provides the most fodder for critics laughing at Objectivism and objectivists�this stuff from you guys should rate pretty high.

Jon

Edited to change a mistake of "deceit" into the intended "conceit."

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 9/22, 4:53pm)

Post 437

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 4:44pm

Has this thread set a record for most posts? It's by no means a complaint...I'm just curious....

Post 438

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 5:25pm

Neil,

Only claimed that I had never heard Rand resort to ad hominem attack against any other philosopher. I don't know if ARI ever claimed a percentage for Rand being right. It is ARI's job to protect Rand's legacy, so I suppose that's what they do there.

I am not going to defend everything about Ayn Rand, nor do I think it's relevant: it's the Brandens' portrait of Ayn Rand I am talking about, and these other issues don't have any bearing on that issue, at all.

Post 439

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 5:33pm