Ayn Rand Smeared Again

Joe,

Allow me to suggest an exercise. Pick someone you have known for more than ten years. Someone with whom you were intimate during all that time, while few others were. It doesn’t have to be someone you shared a man with, just regular intimate. Have you picked? OK.

Now think of the things you know about that person.

Now try and prove to me your conclusions about that person.

Be prepared for me to reject, selectively, those aspects of your story that I don’t like on the grounds that there is no corroborating evidence. And be prepared for my using those aspects of your story that I do like in order to prove that you are a malicious little shit, despite that there is no corroborating evidence for those, either.

And be prepared for me to claim—despite that the way you tell your story shows a great love for the person, as do your activities since the relevant events—that your telling the story at all is proof that you are a lying, malevolent rotter.

Good luck.

Jon

Post 521

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 4:37pm

Jon, I think anyone who's ever had a falling out knows the pitfall of such an exercise.
And really, I don't want to go on a Branden bashing course. My feeling right now is that I want to re-evaluate my estimate of Ayn Rand.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/25, 4:38pm)

Post 522

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 4:38pm

Casey: “You know, the dirty little secret here is that "ARIan" has become an ad hominem slur that is employed in order to distract people from dealing with the merits of the argument and the evidence supporting it.”

I was using the term as shorthand, but sure, it can be used as part of an ad hominen argument. Equally, it may serve as an evaluation. It depends on how it is used.

I agree that ad hominem means “against the man”, not “against the idea”. But equally importantly, ad hominem is a type of argument, along the lines: “x is a bad person, therefore his ideas are false”. But “x is a bad person” is not an ad hominen, because it’s not an argument. It can be a smear or an evaluation, depending on your point of view.

To go back to your original quotes: “In Rand’s psychology, reason unfailingly determines emotion, never the other way around. But in her own erotic life Rand was at the mercy of a turbulent unreason that pulled her under even as she burbled on about her unimpeachable rationality.”

It’s not clear from this whether the author is saying that her psychological theory is mistaken because she failed to live it, or whether he is saying that she could not live up to her own psychological theory. The first would be an ad hominen, but the second would be an evaluation.

But leaving aside these technical matters, this thread is about Ayn Rand being smeared, with the implication that she is being done an injustice. But how true is this? Take this quote: “Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms, who live on the profits of the minds of others and proclaim that man needs no morality, no values, no code of behavior… with his mind throttled and placed at placed at the disposal of any order they wish to issue.”

The targets of this passage can hardly be expected to nod placidly in agreement: “Well, that’s rather harsh, but, hey, it’s fair. You know, when I think about it, I really am a parasite who wants to throttle the minds of my students. Gee, thanks Miss Rand, for pointing that out. You’ve changed my life.”

The fact is that if you choose to play hardball, prepare to get hurt. Rand played hardball. She got hurt.

Brendan

Post 523

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:04pm

But Joe, who cares about Ayn Rand? What’s important, or should be, are her ideas. So we’re back to asking: From among those ‘critics’ who only discuss her personal life, how many would be discussing her ideas if they didn’t know her personal details?

NONE.

The service Valliant’s book has done to her?

ZERO.

Jon

Post 524

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:27pm

Jon, ultimately, yes, what matters are the ideas. No argument there. People who never got into the details of her life have nothing to gain from Valliant's book. But it can be argued that the criticisms of Rand the person do reflect on her philosophy. If the defense of Rand as a person reflects as a defense of the ideas, then I find the book to have been of value.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 9/25, 5:30pm)

Post 525

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:38pm

James Valliant: Your wife is the Magenta Hornet!?!?!?!?! Did I miss that announcement before?

Ethan

Post 526

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:54pm

Ditto that Ethan. I missed that too.

Post 527

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:12pm

Guys,

The announcement was on this thread here.

After that announcement, I posted stating that I was stopping a certain slant to my banter and fencing as I would not disrespect a man's wife in a discussion knowing that I was doing so.

Jon - Post 520. Standing ovation.

Bonk.

Michael

Post 528

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 7:10pm

The service Valliant’s book has done to her?

ZERO.

My opinion of Ayn Rand improved after reading Valliant's book.

Post 529

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 11:51pm

Daniel: Where did your opinion start? And was it what Valliant wrote or what Ayn Rand said therein?

--Brant

Post 530

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 12:12am

Lance,

First, great mug shot, dude!

Thanks I think!

Post 531

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 12:42am

My opinion of Ayn Rand improved after reading Valliant's book.

Mine too. Ayn Rand says something like, "I am different from most other intellectuals because I am honest."

Ayn Rand's honesty is her most powerful characteristic. Honesty means a good deal more than simply telling the truth. It means looking hard at your own life and slapping the devil off your shoulder whenever the bastard shows up. It's the commitment to truth above all things.

Mr. Valliant's book shows that Nathaniel Branden lacks a commitment to honesty. That simple fact removes N.B. from Objectivism. Not because Valliant says so or I say so but because reality is what it is.

Barbara lied to Rand for a period of years to cover Nathaniel's ass. She seems to stick up for Nathaniel even today. Again that commitment to honesty is missing.

I don't want Nathaniel or Barbara to be hurt. If they are living happy, honest lives today then more power to them. If they have done wrong they know it well and don't need anyone piling on at this stage in their lives. As I see it, the point of Valliant's book is that the Branden's have not proven themselves to be credible sources on Rand. In fact, there is every reason to take what they say about Rand with a grain of salt.

Post 532

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 12:53am

Daniel: Where did your opinion start? And was it what Valliant wrote or what Ayn Rand said therein?

My opinion started quite high. It was both Ayn Rand's journal entries and what Valliant wrote that improved my image of her.

Post 533

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 11:24am

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/26, 12:00pm)

Post 534

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:12pm

James,

Always a pleasure.

Let me illustrate my answer first. Suppose it were the case that in order to further his life men were required to spit into the center of a ring of fire on the 1st full moon of every month. Mind you, this is the truth -- not just a superstition, not a folk tale, not a supposed edict handed down by God, but the scientific truth, discovered by hard experience and trial and error, using every scientific means at our disposal. It is, simply, the way things are. Would that fact substantially change anything about Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Before you answer, consider this, perhaps more plausible, illustration. Suppose it were the case that feelings were man's means of knowledge, that in order to know and be certain of anything and to take the proper course of action man didn't require reason, but could and does and is required by nature to feel his emotions to gain knowledge. Again, this is something we have discovered by what would be a somewhat drastically different scientific method than the one we know and love, but it is a fact. Would that fact substantially change anything about Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Or suppose any projected difference in human nature, any hypothetical alternative universe, any fact whatsoever, the answer is the same: only the specific advise would change. All -- and I mean all -- of the basic philosophical conclusions of Objectivism would remain the same.

A would still be A. -- realism in metaphysics
Man would still have to identify those facts using his means of knowledge -- reason in epistemology (I use this word here to mean conceptual identification of the facts)
The goal would still be the same: his own flourishing -- egoism in ethics
And he would still need to be left free to pursue knowledge -- capitalism.in politics.

And if some philosopher came along who said that he had to limit feeling in order to make room for reason and wrote "The Critique of Pure Feeling" it would still be possible to call him the most evil man in history, since his target is not just the Jews, or the Cossacks or the capitalist pigs but mankind as such at the core of his means of survival.

In other words, as long as life and death are the result of a volitional choice to act or not act in accordance with the nature of reality, Objectivism stands.

In that context, and in any other that I can imagine, the very notion of "philosophical research" is meaningless. Philosophy is not a scientific research project like chemistry or astrophysics in which you are likely to be surprised by some new revelation, some new fact

So, to begin with, I deny that ARI is a philosophical research organization. And I affirm that OF COURSE you know the outcome of any new insight that the philosophy leads you to.
You better know. Because the alternative is to never be able to use the philosophy to guide your life.

That is the power of a true philosophy. You know in advance that if you apply it consistently to ever wider and ever narrower fields of study, you will come up with true and important insights -- like, for example, the one above.

Indeed, I hold that that is what it means to accept a philosophy as true -- it means trusting it with your life.

Philosophy is not just a "party line", not just some scientific hypothesis open to falsification, it is a matter of life and death. If it is false -- like idealism in metaphysics, or faith in epistemology, or altruism in ethics, or collectivism in politics -- no amount of further research will make it true. And if it is true -- as Objectivism is -- no amount of further research will make it false.

And, finally, given the above and your own brain, what in the hell do you have to fear from ARI?

Ayn Rand's advise still stands: Judge and be prepared to be judged.

Tom

P.S. The above doesn't deal with all of the issues surrounding ARI. So continue to ask. I will do my best. I must emphasize that I do not speak for ARI. I speak only for myself.

Post 535

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:49am

Tom,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Actually this highlights something that's been nagging at me about Truth and Toleration. The reason a philosopher takes extreme positions is to establish the principle he is trying to protect. In advocacy you don't highlight borderline cases, exceptions, etc. because you are trying to establish the principle. If you fail in establishing the principle you will persuade no one as they will be more enamoured of the borderline cases and exceptions than the principle.

Jim

Post 536

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:04am

Tom,

You write,

"Or suppose any projected difference in human nature, any hypothetical alternative universe, any fact whatsoever, the answer is the same: only the specific advise would change. All -- and I mean all -- of the basic philosophical conclusions of Objectivism would remain the same."

This delimits the scope of Objectivism to axioms and facts that can be derived - through the application of the axioms of logic - from axioms alone. (Historically, this delimitation of the scope of Objectivism was developed by Ayn Rand at some point between 1969 and 1973.) The upside of this delimitation is that it makes the philosophical principles of Objectivism independent of specific facts, as you have written above; even of the facts from which those principles were induced in the first place. The downside is that those areas in which the application of philosophical principles does depend on non-axiomatic facts are thereby excluded from the scope of "philosophy." These areas include the philosophy of science and the philosophy of law. Therefore the implications include:

1. Philosophy of law is outside Objectivism, and therefore no one is working to develop an objective philosophy of law. This means that even Objectivists such as Dana Berliner are doing Law without a grounded philosophy of law, except for snippets produced by non-specialists here and there - not much to go on.

2. In philosophy of science, all we have is the work of Robert Efron and Harry Binswanger from before 1973. Nothing of use to a working scientist, e.g. yours truly, since then.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to use a philosophy for really "Living on Earth" without developing those areas in which axiomatic principles must me fully integrated with contextually grounded, specific facts. My own primary interest in Objectivism is that it can provide a sound foundation for a philosophy of science, which is badly needed not only in my own area, the information sciences, but in all of science. From my perspective, Rand's narrowing of what she considered the scope of "philosophy" after 1969-1973 was unfortunate, and something of a mistake.

Post 537

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 11:51am

Adam,

I so agree with you on this. Unfortunate is right. I kind of understand the why behind her action, but it is still unfortunate.

Post 538

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 4:21pm

Adam and Rich,

I'm not sure where you've been since 1973, but there is plenty of evidence that a philosophy of science is not only possible for Objectivism, but that it is thriving.

But before I get to the evidence I simply want to point out that nothing in what I said leads to the conclusion that you draw from it. Not for me, and not for Ayn Rand. What Rand and Piekoff have questioned was the notion that, on the one hand "Objectivism is delimited to the axioms and the facts derived from them" and, on the other, as a corollary, "those areas in which the application of philosophic principles does depend on non-axiomatic facts are thereby excluded from philosophy."

The first of these is argued against, for example, in Peikoff's History of Philosophy, where he argues against Hegel's attempt to do just that -- derive facts from the axioms. The second is brought into question by noting that NONE of the facts (e.g. that man requires reason to live, or the volitional nature of human cognition or the theory of concepts) are derivations of the axioms. They ARE, however, applications of the axioms, which is, in essence what any "Philosophy of...." is. Including the four I listed.

Now for the evidence.

The appendix to IOE contains many leads to as well as a separate section on Philosophy of Science. (1990)

The Ayn Rand Book Store lists many recent titles beyond Binswanger's Audio Tape set, including: Karl Popper's Assault on Science; The Philosophic Corruption of Physics; The Philosophy of Romanticism vs. Science; The 19th-century Atomic War; Unreason in Modern Physics; What's destroying Science; The Crisis in Physics-- and its cause. All post 1973

Then there are discussions at www.forums.4aynrandfans.com on everything from elemetary wave theory to gravity to emergent theory and more.

Then there is the work of Gotthelf and Lennox in the philosophy of biology.

My graduate thesis was going to be on The influence of Kant on the Bohr-Einstein debate (none of the details of which I remember). I got a good deal of encouragement for the proposal from Binswanger, Lennox and Gotthelf. As well as my professors at Ohio State.

Have either of you been to the forum web site?

Tom

Post 539

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:56pm