Here's Another Reason I'm Getting More and More Disgusted with OL

[Note: This is typical of the sort of thing the most frequent posters, perhaps even a majority now? over at Objectivist Living have been saying recently. I don't know if Neil Parille is accurately quoting Branden...but my response below was taking it at face value.]

[This is my post from an OL thread entitled 'the logical leap' in which a bunch of people are trying to review David Harriman's latest book without actually having read it-->]

More Bullshit: Rand as Ignoramus

> NB told me that Rand didn't know anything about religion or mysticism [Neal Parille]

Really?? Not anything? Nothing at all?

All you have to do is *read her* and you'll see she had lots of good insights about both, about the consequences, about what makes people adopt them, about the psychological damage that might result, about the differences in several instances, about contrasts between Augustine and Aquinas, analyses of various papal encyclicals, about the logic of the concept of God and of believing in a higher power, the contradictions of an omnipotent and omniscient and benevolent being allowing and fostering massive evil...

...and that's just off the top of my head!!!!!!!!

That's a howler, right up there with the one that she didn't know history, didn't read much, never read any philosophy, never understood psychology...only got the preceding two spoonfed her by NB and Leonard Peikoff, etc.

Oh, I forgot: Never read any literature. Didn't understand poetry. Didn't follow the news. Didn't know anything about science.

Yada, yada...

Hmmm... Sounds like someone still angry at her after all these years and who wants to cut her down to size???

If the sexes were reversed, I have to say penis envy.

Post 1

Monday, July 12, 2010 - 8:06pm

The claims I refer to are mostly ones someone has posted over at OL in the last X number of months. I answered some of them in some detail giving evidence from Rand's work that she knew a great deal of history, etc. But then I got tired of doing it, was the only one making these points, perhaps the only one who had done enough reading to be able to recall them....

Even the people who knew better were not joining in to set the record straight. And they should have been.
(Edited by Philip Coates on 7/12, 8:07pm)

Post 2

Monday, July 12, 2010 - 8:11pm

Phil,

I first met NB in the early seventies. Over these many decades I've never heard him say anything like what you've mentioned. I get tired of the attacks on Rand... and the attacks on Branden. Maybe we should just ignore everything that isn't in writing or heard first hand.

Post 3

Monday, July 12, 2010 - 9:48pm

Phil,

Neil always uses some tangential topic to get at Rand. I'm not sure what his motivation is. I'm glad you posted what you did.

Jim

Post 4

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 12:47am

From Branden's lecture "The Benefits and Hazards if the Philosophy of Ayn Rand":

"Ayn Rand was a great champion of reason, a passionate champion of the human mind � and a total adversary of any form of irrationalism or any form of what she called mysticism. I say "of what she called mysticism," because I do not really think she understood mysticism very well � I know she never studied the subject � and irrationalism and mysticism are not really synonymous, as they are treated in Atlas Shrugged."

Post 5

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 4:21am

Subject: Refuting Mr. Branden

> irrationalism and mysticism are not really synonymous, as they are treated in Atlas Shrugged. [NB]

First of all it's a novel. Second, to condemn 'irrationalism and mysticism' in one breath is like condemning 'theft and murder' simultaneously. In neither case is the pair intended to be viewed as synonymous. Third, Rand clearly defines irrationalism and mysticism in a way that makes it clear they are not synonyms.

Fourth, is there any reason Mr. B could not give us an example of his abstract claim, if it's true?

Fifth, as I recall there are some good things in Hazards and Benefits, mixed with some dumb or exaggerated things....thanks for reminding me of one of the latter.

(Edited by Philip Coates on 7/13, 4:33am)

Post 6

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 4:29am

Now perhaps you will understand why Lindsay Perigo derisively refers to that forum as "Objectivist Lying"! I think I made one post to that forum years ago before realizing the true nature of its principals and instructing them to delete my account -- which they at least had the integrity to do. Sadly, that virtue fails to carry to other important areas of their lives.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/13, 4:38am)

Post 7

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 8:37am

As you may know, Mr. Branden believes in extra-sensory perception (which he calls "anomalous perception"). Bearing that in mind, consider the following definition of "mysticism" from Rand's essay "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World."

"What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.'"

* * * * *

Not to defend Mr. Branden's attack on Rand, but in Post #5, Phil said that "Rand clearly defines irrationalism and mysticism in a way that makes it clear they are not synonyms." I'm not so sure she did. Here is the definition of "irrationalism" in The Glossary of Objectivist Definitions:

�Irrationalism� is the doctrine that reason is not a valid means of knowledge or a proper guide to action."

I'd say this is pretty close to her definition of "mysticism."

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/13, 8:48am)

Post 8

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 9:19am

I stopped posting at Objectivist Living, also, though for a different reason of my own. In this case, I pointed my browser to the URL, Searched for the topic and read a bit. I will say that Neil Parille is out of his element when he suggests:

I think one could observe toddlers as they learn concepts and also ask them questions. Perhaps one could show that they learn causality in the way Harriman says.
I can't introspect about how I formed the concept table or anything else when I was young. I can introspect about how I form concepts now, but I don't think I can conclude that this is how my mind worked when I was young.
I suspect that Rand's two objects plus a foil approach in ITO is probably not correct. Her theory of concept formation implies that you can't conceptualize a single existent, which isn't true. Do you need to observe two planetary systems to form the concept? If so we didn't understand what the solar system was until we observed similar systems.
-Neil Parille

I was an Objectivist before I was a parent and I knew something of epistemology which I attempted to apply during the process. I will not go into the cute baby stories, but any parent can tell you that concept formation -- abstraction -- is or at least seems to be automatic. They learn from what they perceive.

But that was all I saw in this thread, some detail-level discussions of the epistemology of babyhood. Yes, there was Brant Gaede judging the book second-hand. What was not evident was anything at all like one finds on SOLO. To quote Lindsay Perrigo's painting OL as "Objectivist Lying" as if he is any position to judge is ironic. RoR as we know was calved from SOLO as it was, after Lindsay Perrigo lost his bearings and chased Barbara Branden (and many others) away. Barbara Branden later joined OL a

Then on Page 3, we find Neil Parille making blanket statements about what was or was not in Ayn Rand's mind. Nothing from Michael Stuart Kelly on that, either way.

MSK has his own personal shortcomings, as we all do: me first, if you don't mind. But that said, it is unfair to condemn Objectivist Living as a website for discussion solely on the basis of that one topic. The thread was started by Robert Campbell, not Michael Stuart Kelly, so it is not clear to me how this reflects at all on OL.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/13, 9:44am)

Post 9

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 9:23am

> �Irrationalism� is the doctrine that reason is not a valid means of knowledge or a proper guide to action."I'd say this is pretty close to her definition of "mysticism."

Bill, I recall her making it pretty clear from her usage that while the two terms overlap, they are not synonyms.

Nor would they be synonyms in precise standard English usage. And if a writer doesn't provide her own definition, you are entitled to assume standard usage.

Mysticism is a form of irrationalism in the sense that it makes a positive claim as to another source of knowledge while irrationalism is any denial of reason or any claim to have another source of knowledge. Such as the emotions.

Someone, just as an example, who claims "I just know, because I feel it and I'm very intuitive, my feelings never lie to me" would be practicing irrationalism, but not mysticism. Such a person (e.g., the Shirley McLaine type) does not have to be a mystic, doesn't have to believe in some supernatural realm or in God.

mysticism: 1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight) -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism

irrationalism: : a system emphasizing intuition, instinct, feeling, or faith rather than reason...

...........
> It is unfair to condemn Objectivist Living as a website for discussion solely on the basis of that one topic. The thread was started by Robert Campbell, not Michael Stuart Kelly, so it is not clear to me how this reflects at all on OL. [MM]

Michael, my criticism of OL is cumulative and based on lots of instances not just one thread.

I've waited till I've seen a lot and until the site has been taken over pretty much by those hostile to Objectivism or at the bare minimum not comprehending it. Or seeming to want to.

I don't mind the 'frequent posters' [those who seem to post every hour or two and so dominate the conversation] finding flaws in Rand...she had a number of them.

But I do mind herd instinct or stupidity or willful laziness in trying to study and understand an often difficult philosophy. I don't even mind when people (mistakenly) think they have found flaws in the philosophy...as long as its clear they are conscientious not lazy or sloppy or mean-spirited and snarky. Once again, my conclusions are based on an accumulation of data and posting exchanges. And this is not true of *everybody* over there. There exist a number of conscientious thinkers.)

(Edited by Philip Coates on 7/13, 9:38am)

Post 10

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 10:43am

You're disgusted with outside linebackers? Why?

Post 11

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 11:55am

Phil,

Rand doesn't define "mysticism" the way you did.

Post 12

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 10:40am

Yes, I judged Harriman's book second-hand. When he gets some reviews by actual physicists I might be encouraged to read it. The ARIans can't even do philosophy right, so I have no faith in their scientific expertise off that base. It's the equivalent of Lysenkoism until the scientists get ahold of it--if they have any reason too. Someone wrote a book on Rand's normative ethics and priced it like a textbook. I judged that second-hand too, aside from my wallet.

--Brant

Post 13

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 1:51pm

Mysticism from dictionary.com:

a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with god through contemplation or ecstasy.

Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
The experience of such communion as described by mystics.

A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

Mysticism from Rand:

Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality�other than the one in which we live�whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.

(Note that she gives this right after the definition Bill quoted. Usually that implies each description is providing more detailed information, so the form ones may act more like a description of the genus).

I don't see the problem? Is the dictionary versions supposed to be wrong as well? Is there some new definition? Or is it the fact that she thinks it's within the general category of irrationalism supposed to be the problem?

Post 14

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 2:35pm

Brant,
I've almost finished Harriman's book and I can enthusiastically recommend it. (And it's only $16!) It's based on Peikoff's lectures on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" and Harriman's lectures on the philosophy of physics. But, it's been "cleaned up"; it's not just a transcription of the lectures. It's well-written and I've only found one typo so far (four-fifths thru the book). It's an excellent application of the Objectivist epistemology to the philosophy of science. Maybe I'll write a long review of it later.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 15

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 3:09pm

Thanks, Joe. Rand's elaboration on the definition I quoted puts a little different slant on it. There it's clear, contra Branden, that her view of mysticism is not synonymous with her concept of "irrationalism," but is subsumed under it as a subset of that concept.
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/13, 3:14pm)

Post 16

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 4:16pm

It appears to me that most of the discussions about ideas (e.g. Mysticism v. Irrationalism) are secondary to discussions of who said what, and those are secondary to attacks on individuals. That is how that OL thread, and to a lessor degree, this thread appear to be shaping up.

I noted hostility towards Rand and Branden in a number of posts (mostly on OL). And it seemed like the content and the he-said-she-said were secondary and only there as a thin veil over the attacks.

Maybe there are others who know Neil Parille - I don't. But when I went to his personal blog where he lists theology among his interests, and then I looked at his articles and particularly the blogs he recommends.

I'll let others draw their own conclusions. Here are 6 of the 8 recommended blogs:
Ben Witherington on the Bible and Culture
Maverick Philosopher - Bill Vallicella, a philosopher, political conservative, Christian apologist who seems to spend a great deal of time criticizing Rand in harsh terms.
Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Which says, "This wonderful blog chronicles exactly why and to what extent Ayn Rand was horribly incorrect on a number of issues."
Michael Prescott's Blog"Interests: Fiction, Shakespeare, philosophy, evolution, Intelligent Design, origin of life, critiques of Ayn Rand, critiques of Objectivism, spirituality, religion, parapsychology, afterlife studies, anthropic principle in cosmology, synchronicities, crime history, thrillers, historical novels, Joss Whedon, writing, moral intuitionism, ethics, meta-ethics, dualism, critiques of philosophical materialism, tennis, cellular biology, quantum physics, historical Jesus, the Bible.
BiblicalStudies.org.uk
View from the Right This appears to be a right-wing political culture site with a religion-based, anti-homosexual theme.
---------------

All of this is such a waste of time. I don't care what people think and how they organize their lives, but I am stunned at the existence of those whose lives appear to be organized around criticizing Rand. When I started looking at this thread my intent was to suggest that we focus more on ideas and less on snipping at Rand or Branden, especially with this he-said, she-said stuff.

But now I wonder how much time should anyone spend in answering posts by people with such confused premises and questionable motives?

Post 17

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 4:29pm

Interesting, considering OL is one of the few sites either Brandens bother being part of, albeit sporatically...

Post 18

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 4:52pm

Who's snipping at Rand? No one that I can see.

Post 19

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 4:56pm