The Argument from Intimidation

Ayn Rand's essay on "The Argument from Intimidation" became a favorite of mine back in 1969, when I was starting to read her nonfiction. On going back through it recently, I found it just as cogent as I did then.

The difference is that back in high school, I couldn't envision Rand resorting to the very tactics that she so incisively exposed in that essay. Surely only the apologists for the intellectual Establishment could ever be involved in anything so cheap and dastardly. 15 or 20 years later, after I'd moved away from Rand's views on a number of issues, I would still try to defend her slams at other thinkers when non-Randians complained about them. It took me far too long to acknowledge what I'm sure has been obvious to many outside the confines of Rand-land--that Rand was perfectly capable of doing to her opponents precisely what her opponents did to her.

Here are key passages from the essay (all page references are to the paperback edition of The Virtue of Selfishness):

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an
argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. (p. 139)

...the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to
impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus
impeaching the argument without debate. (p. 139)

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. (p. 139)

Rand gave some excellent advice about the place of moral evaluations in discussions of ideas:

a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based. (p. 143)

When Rand wrote about what Bertrand Russell was "able to perpetrate," without saying what it was or how it qualified as perpetrating, was she
following her own advice?

When she alleged that those who took Russell seriously (on the same unstated issue) just "kinda knew" what number is, was she following her own advice?

When she put down Emerson as a "little mind" or wrote Wittgenstein
off as the epitome of irrationality, implying that he had confessed to being "a mind out of focus," was she following her own advice?

When she alleged that logical positivists were lazy, petulant, and grossly immature, without pointing to any aspect of logical positivist theory that could have arisen through laziness, petulance, or gross cognitive immaturity, was she following her own advice?

When she referred to Immanuel Kant as "the most evil man in history," without adducing any evidence about his motives, was she following her own advice?

Rand went on to note that using the Argument from Intimidation is not just
epistemically irresponsible, but morally irresponsible.

When one gives reasons for one's verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one's reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral "hit-and-run" driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation. (p. 143)

Again, an excellent point.

But since Rand used the Argument from Intimidation herself, we must conclude that she was morally irresponsible.

For evidence of Rand's use of the argument in intimidation in print,
my post on her repeated slams at Bertrand Russell(http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0611_24.shtml#493),
and my follow-up detailing her slam at Russell on pp. 50-51 of the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0650_2.shtml#55). See the further elucidations
by me (http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0650_3.shtml#69 and
http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0650_3.shtml#73), and a clarification by Merlin Jetton
(http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0650_3.shtml#74).

Further examples (pertaining to Emerson, Wittgenstein, the logical positivists, and Kant) were provided by Peter Reidy (http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0611_24.shtml#489).

Mr. Valliant sought to justify, or excuse, all of these by insisting
that they were mere presentations of arguments or statements of opinion. But by Rand's own criteria, they are not.

For evidence of Rand's use of the argument from intimidation during question and answer sessions, see the testimony of Steven Shmurak
(http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0636_13.shtml#266)
and Bill Dwyer (http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0636_13.shtml#261). Messrs. Valliant and Fahy never responded to either of these.

Now Mr. Fahy (http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1431_11.shtml#238)
has dismissed the entire question as irrelevant:

So far, we've seen attacks on the publisher [of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics], the writing style, the book flap, the editing of Rand's notes (without a single citation of a problem with those edits), the style in which the edits were presented (which were made in the standard, accepted form for such edits), irrelevant references to Rand's rhetoric concerning other philosophers, etc., and we have seen a lot of gross generalizations about James's motivations for writing the book (to paint the Brandens as total monsters and construe every one of their errors as "gleeful" participation in spiritual rape or to set Rand up as some flawless goddess,or to make a fast buck, or to set himself up as an Objectivist hero), ARI conspiracy theories, etc. I have had about enough of that stuff.

It's up to Messrs. Valliant and Fahy whether they wish to contribute to this thread.

What's not up to them is whether they can keep having their cake and eating it, at the same time, in the same respect.

They maintain that Mr. Valliant's book is merely aimed at impeaching Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's testimony regarding Rand's character, rather than proving that Ayn Rand was morally perfect(http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1446_2.shtml#53). Indeed, Mr. Valliant, at least, has conceded that Rand was not perfect
(http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0636.shtml#3). This should have freed them from having to defend Rand against every allegation of moral failings.

They could have been consistent, and taken the view that evidence provided by participants here on SOLOHQ is outside the scope of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. They could have allowed that, after NB and BB's assertions are discredited, the other chips will just fall where they may.

But they haven't kept to any such policy. Instead, they've denied that Rand resorted to the Argument from Intimidation, then dropped the discussion when it was no longer going their way.

Robert Campbell

Post 1

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:13pm

Robert,

That was one hell of a post.

The quote you posted from Casey was him trying to bait me into raising old arguments. Frankly, I have only a limited amount of patience with arguing things like whether a man used empty booze bottles to paint with or not.

He did make a pretty good summary of what he and James apparently believe transpired in the discussions on Solo. Unfortunately his appraisal does not reflect the facts, as you so soundly and solidly presented, with links, quotes and precise summaries.

There are a couple of rhetorical devices in their manner of arguing that deserve attention, I will only mention one for now.

Argument by diversion and repetition.

How this works is that you postulate something, divert any discussion about it off into tangents and merely keep on repeating it. Always. You don't need to present any proof or, frankly, any sound premises. After a time, it sort of "takes" and people start repeating it also.

This is especially evident in the constant repeating that Barbara and Nathaniel are dishonest (not were dishonest about one particular issue or other - but now the conjugation floating around is are). Just keep on repeating it, talking circles all over the place when anything comes up that questions it, and people eventually fall into the party line.

I just finished writing and putting up an article on another subject entirely and I have a few assignments that I have set for myself, so I don't have as much time as I would like to dedicate to this matter. I will get around to making a solid preparation, however. Yours above is beautifully done.

As an aside, there is something I want to raise outside the discussion of the particular merits of Valliant's book.

I outlined a few pages of that book for discussion on another thread, then I noticed that one of the pages gave which Rand journal entries were excluded from publication. Valliant said that any entries that dealt with anybody other than Barbara, Nathaniel and Patrecia were excluded. I missed that the first time, then suddenly I thought it odd that Frank thus would be excluded.

There is this whole thing about him being called an alcoholic on flimsy evidence. If we step outside the time-frame of the period Valliant covered and go later, wouldn't it be logical to assume that if Frank did have an alcohol problem, this would be something that Rand would write about in her journal, especially if she made attempts to help him (as is usual with family members)?

Casey alleged that Rand didn't write hardly anything about Frank in private anymore because she modeled her fictional heroes on him and had written out on the subject. Ha! I find that to be akin to offering beads as proper payment for Manhattan - just way too far out there to take seriously unless you are a savage.

Entries from her journal would help clear that matter up definitively, I think, one way or another. At least they would give us what she thought of the matter. She was his wife, after all.

I remember in college receiving The Ayn Rand Letter. One of the issues started with the Serenity Prayer of AA. Ayn Rand stated that she had been visiting AA, where she read that prayer. This was an essay on the metaphysical versus the man-made. I remember thinking back then what on earth she was doing down at AA. I admit that this doesn't prove anything, but it is so uncharacteristic of the places she wrote about visiting and fits the time frame so well that it has been one reason I have not been so quick to discard the hypothesis that Frank had a drinking problem.

Michael

Post 2

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 1:54pm

Michael,

I also plan to respond to some of the claims about Rand made in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. But what I write will have to be at least the length of the piece at the top of this thread. That way I can get in every relevant quotation from Rand's journals (with page references), so the reader can see what she said, and every relevant quotation from Valliant's commentary (with page references), so the reader can see what Valliant said Rand said.

There's nothing wrong with taking the time to write this way, even if Messrs. Valliant and Fahy try to dismiss anyone who doesn't produce an instant response.

As for Frank O'Connor, it could be that Mr. Fahy is right, and Rand wasn't writing about him in her journals in 1967-1968. But when you combine the paucity of evidence from other people about Frank O'Connor's thoughts and feelings during the period with the complete absence of writings of his own, you get a situation that has to be the despair of any serious biographer.

To my mind, one of the worst features of Mr. Valliant's book is the way that Frank O'Connor and Patrecia Wynand both become complete ciphers. Rand's negative evaluations of Patrecia are apparently, from Mr. Valliant's standpoint, to be accepted without question. In Frank's case, Mr. Valliant presumes that he approved of everything that Rand was doing.

One question that has occurred to me, after trying to make sense of the claims and counterclaims about Frank O'Connor's drinking, is whether he was starting to show signs of dementia in 1967-1968. He turned 70 in 1967, and even after it become fairly obvious his dementia was apparently not promptly diagnosed. (Before 1975 or so, old people who were demented were usually said to be "senile," and their condition was not thought to require a special explanation.) In The Passion of Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden mentions the slowness to diagnose his problem, and Rand's reluctance to accept the diagnosis. (I suppose Mr. Valliant could chalk those details up to BB's alleged all-encompassing mendacity, but he doesn't do it in his book.)

Robert Campbell

Post 3

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:16pm

I hit the red check. I do not care about the Passionate Critics of Critical Passion. That stuff is derivative nonsense. However, you are right on target about Ayn Rand's use of the Argument from Intimidation.

In the thread Objectivism vs. Libertarianism, you wrote: "I was just reminding Bill that Rand hated rock music and let her readers know it. I'm not signing on to Michael's implication that a hard-core Randian would want to ban rock music."

I agree that from here and now, it is unlikely that Peter Schwartz is going to call on Congress to ban rock and roll. However, what I see is someone who spends a lot of time worrying about what other people are doing wrong. I came to SOLO because I like reading the works of -- and writing for -- people are interested in what they are doing right.

We certainly do criticize here. I as much as anyone and with less justification, perhaps. Even so, I find the general tone or overall context to be very affirmative and affirming.

On the other hand, a hour with The Objectivist Newsletter or, worse, the Ayn Rand Letter, and it is easy to understand that Manhattans are made with bitters.

So, thanks for tracking down all the citations to make an important point.

Post 4

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:24pm

The difference between argumentum ad hominem and argument from intimidation is insignificant to me. Both attack a person rather than explain why an argument is false or faulty. Rand gives an example of the former: "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false." She gives an example of the latter: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false." The difference here is merely who is charged as immoral, Candidate X or somebody else. In either case, it does not address Candidate X's argument per se.

In addition to the instances given by Robert Campbell, Rand used argumentum ad hominem many times in "For The New Intellectual" (the essay within the book). Some prominent ones are:
1. Rationalists claimed that knowledge is obtained exclusively by deduction from concepts, which come from inside the head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts.
2. Empiricists claimed knowledge is obtained exclusively from experience -- by direct perception of immediate facts -- with no recourse to concepts.
3. Her characterization of Hume's philosophy.

Her extremist claims about Rationalism and Empiricism are clearly false. It's one thing to criticize a characterization like the Witch Doctor. It's another thing to criticize a straw man characterization of particular, real individuals. When Rand did the latter to others, she in effect invited others to do the same to her. Tit for tat, else it's hypocrisy.

Post 5

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:23pm

Here's an example of what Merlin is referring to:

It was Attila's soul that spoke when Hume declared that he experienced a flow of fleeting states inside his skull, such as sensations, feelings, or memories, but had never caught the experience of such a thing as consciousness or self. (For the New Intellectual, paperback ed., p. 29)

Robert Campbell

Post 6

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 10:21am

Michael (Post 1) and Robert (Post 2) have raised once again, at least by implication, an important issue: the completeness of biographical material supplied by Leonard Peikoff to the Ayn Rand Institute, then supplied by ARI to James Valliant, who then, in turn, reported it in his book.

In Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 276 (hardcover, first edition), Dr. Peikoff makes the following statement:

There are men other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie. For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers.

Given that Dr. Peikoff had initial control over all of the private information and materials from Ayn Rand's estate that he later provided to ARI for its archives -- given his explicit statement that "lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers" -- and given the embarrassing sensitivity of the personal issues raised by the Brandens concerning (especially) Frank O'Connor, as well as other intimate aspects of the Rand-Branden affair -- there is simply no way for any reader to independently assess the reliability of Mr. Valliant's book on these matters. That is true even assuming his own complete integrity and best intentions in providing a complete and accurate account. Was he (or even ARI) supplied all of Ayn Rand's private correspondence by Leonard Peikoff? Given Peikoff's stated policy, how could he know?

More to the point: How can we know?

For this reason alone, it is utterly pointless to continue to debate ad nauseum some of these personal issues, or to try independently to assess the merits of the claims and counter-claims about them. Barbara and Nathaniel Branden relied upon their own memories, upon letters and journals which none of us have seen, and upon sources which they sometimes did not name. On the other hand, Valliant relied (ultimately) on the man who had total control over Rand's private papers, who proclaims lying as "necessary and proper" to protect one's personal privacy, and who could certainly be expected to apply that policy in order to protect the woman he venerated above all others -- especially against "enemies" whom he regards as far worse than mere "snoopers." Moreover, only a few hand-picked individuals, such as Mr. Valliant, have been permitted to independently examine even the information (however limited or complete) which Dr. Peikoff has placed in the ARI archives.

In a court of law, as Mr. Valliant knows, those who testify must swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. How can we know the "whole truth" about these intimate matters when the gatekeeper of that "truth" has publicly committed himself to a policy of lying about private matters...on principle?

To any fair-minded outside observer, Mr. Valliant's case against the reliability of the Brandens fails, at least on certain intimate issues, because the completeness, and therefore the reliability, of his own account on those same issues is equally dubious. Once again, this is true even assuming his complete personal integrity and best of intentions in drawing reasonable conclusions from all the information he was provided. (And I, for one, have no particular reason to doubt him on either of those counts.)

As in most cases concerning the intimate lives of individuals, this is likely a case in which we will never know all of the relevant information -- or, even if we have it, be certain that we do.

Nor is it necessary that we do. And why should we care that we do? Implicit in the approach of the zealous champions of Ayn Rand the person is the belief that, somehow, any perceived personal flaw will undermine the successful spread of her ideas through our culture. That is nonsense, and a tacit surrender to the perpetrators of ad hominems.

The merits of Ayn Rand's philosophical and literary achievements can be gauged objectively and quite independently of whatever was going on in her tumultuous personal life. We can know with certainty one thing: that whatever the full truth about Ayn Rand, the individual and the woman, she had sufficient character to achieve what she achieved as Ayn Rand, philosopher and novelist.

To me, the magnitude of her public achievements is a sufficient measure of the magnitude of her private character -- at least, in all of those ways that should matter to any of us.

Post 7

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 11:16am

Well said...

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:53am

Nor is it necessary that we do. And why should we care that we do? Implicit in the approach of the zealous champions of Ayn Rand the person is the belief that, somehow, any perceived personal flaw will undermine the successful spread of her ideas through our culture. That is nonsense, and a tacit surrender to the perpetrators of ad hominems.

Thrilled to see you back on this site. As usual, you cut through the crap and get to the heart of the matter.

Post 9

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:58am

Thanks, from one Robert to the two preceding Roberts.

My schedule doesn't permit me to post much now, but if properly motivated (i. e., irritated), I may do so from time to time.

Post 10

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:13am

Well, as John Sherman used to say to me - the unirritated oyster produces no pearls...

Post 11

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:14am

Robert Bidinotto,

I just saw your post on Valliant's access of ARI material. What a wonderful post and breath of fresh air from all the recent hair-splitting!

Bonk.

You wrote:

To me, the magnitude of her [Rand's] public achievements is a sufficient measure of the magnitude of her private character -- at least, in all of those ways that should matter to any of us.

Amen.

Michael

Post 12

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 2:51pm

Robert B,

Thank you for reminding us of Leonard Peikoff's stated belief that "privacy lies" are OK.

It does cast doubt on the assurances that Peikoff has given to James Valliant--or to any other researcher who has been allowed access to Ayn Rand's letters and journals.

Thank you, too, for distinguishing sufficient character from moral perfection.

Robert C

Post 13

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 2:56pm

Mr. Bidinotto,

Regardless of what you imagine Peikoff suppressed, the BRANDENS NEVER HAD ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO BEGIN WITH, (and neither claimed to witness any evidence of O'Connor's alleged alcoholism) to make such an outrageous claim in the first place.

The rest of your post is just a smokescreen for this glaring fact.

And would you tell the truth to Nazis if you were hiding Jews? Or do you make the same distinction Peikoff makes? If so, does that make your credibility just as suspect?

And do you have any evidence that Peikoff ever lied about Rand or her private affairs in the manner you suggest? Cite one example that would establish some reason to suspect this of Peikoff, please.

And the case that Valliant is making is not the truth about Rand but the lack of credibility of the Brandens. You might try reading the book -- it would give you a bit more credibility if you knew what the book is doing and is not doing.

Post 14

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 2:59pm

Mr. Bidinotto,

You write: "Once again, this is true even assuming [Valliant's] complete personal integrity and best of intentions in drawing reasonable conclusions from all the information he was provided. (And I, for one, have no particular reason to doubt him on either of those counts.)"

But, sir, even prior to the availability of my book, you had already done so in the most offensive and insulting way possible, when you posted the following on this website:

"It is dismaying that a pack of parasites has found a way to produce paychecks and royalties by rummaging through and selling off the contents of Ayn Rand's attic and wastepaper baskets."

Your own credibility is to be measured by the fact that you could and did publish such a statement without knowing me or investigating the matter.

Post 15

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 3:09pm

Mr. Fahy,

I await with interest your response to the posts farther up this thread.

In the meantime, I wonder whether you agree with Leonard Peikoff's endorsement of "privacy lies." (And no references to hiding Jews from Nazis, please. Peikoff is explicit about how it's OK to lie to those who are neither criminals nor dictators--nor working on behalf of either.)

Ironically, it's been said that Peikoff adopted his position on privacy lies precisely on account of the affair between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. That may not be correct; however, I don't recall Peikoff endorsing privacy lies in his early 1970s lecture courses--when he did endorse lying to Nazis when hiding Jews in one's house.

Robert Campbell
(Edited by Robert Campbell
on 10/27, 3:35pm)

Post 16

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 3:20pm

Mr. Campbell,

The entire matter is irrelevant to PARC. Are you and Mr. Bidinotto claiming that the only real evidence for the Brandens' claims resides in a vault at ARI? That is a concession that they never had any evidence to begin with and now rely on mythical smoking gun evidence they don't even know exists that Peikoff may be suppressing.

Again, all this proves is that they never had reliable evidence to base their claims on in the first place. To rely on Peikoff to come along now and validate their baseless claims is the height of gall. What were they making these claims for in the first place if their case depends on unseen evidence suppressed by ARI? We can now make any claim in the world, I guess, and claim that the reason we can't settle the matter conclusively is that ARI may be hiding the evidence for the claim!

Post 17

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 3:20pm

Mr. Campbell,

I don't know about Casey, but as far as I am concerned such lies could only be proper, in any event, when there is a "privacy" to protect. Ayn Rand is dead. The lies Bidinotto projects cannot be justified in my view. Mr. Bidinotto does owe us HIS account of when such lies are proper before he spits out an arbitrary accusation like that, don't you see? (But, really, "it's said" counts as evidence?)

Also, there is no question of who has the actual and (now further) demonstrated track-record for lying -- and it first occurs to Bidinotto to question the credibility of whom?

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 10/27, 3:38pm)

Post 18

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 3:46pm

Robert B,
With all due respect, I'm with Piekoff on this one. I have every right, morally, to lie to anyone to protect my privacy and would do so unhesitatingly. My life, including information I possess about it, is mine and I owe no duty to provide that to all and sundry.

Of course, we could always do as my professors used to do and invent circumstances where doing so on my part would be illegitimate. If, for example, the life of an innocent person whom I valued hung on my refusal to reveal my phone number or some such thing. But that is not what we are discussing here.

In th[e normal] case, I'd say, damn right I have the right to lie. To protect my phone number, my past, my secret vices or virtues, or any other damn thing that is no one else's business. If the person is dead, does that change the situation? Perhaps, but I'd have to hear a reasoned argument -- it's not a given. If the privacy I'm protecting is another's not mine, I still have the right to lie. No one has an apriori right to knowledge or facts I possess. The virtue of honesty does not require this -- under Objectivist interpretation of that contextual virtue.

You, after all, are not an intrinsicist. I beg you to consider whether your dislike of Dr. Piekoff is coloring your considered judgement on this issue.

Jeff
Bracketed portion added in editing to clarify ambiguity.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 10/27, 4:04pm)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 10/27, 4:06pm)

Post 19

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:25pm