About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOLOLOL


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 11:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Miracle is right! Didn't Peikoff "steal" some of the original pages of Rand's manuscript of The Fountainhead from the Library of Congress? I know this is just a joke, but isn't it kind of odd to imagine the LOC burying the hatchet and inviting him to speak?

Post 2

Friday, February 3, 2006 - 11:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is Roger Bissell writing as Artemis Kerridge. See the Extended Profile.

Post 3

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 5:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very clever put-on, Roger. I for one didn't take offense at all: you conducted a useful experiment in prejudice.

Besides, I like older women.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 9:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

You ever think of coming out in drag like that? (I personally think Rogie was getting quite a fan club - and not for philosophy, either.)

//;-)

Michael


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 9:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Robert. I like older women, too. I tried to make Artemis someone I would like.

For that matter, I wish Ayn Rand were still around. I'd love to have had the chance to convince her that she needn't have told Harry Binswanger to dump the entry for "architecture" from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Incredible, isn't it, what lengths some people will go to to "save the phenomenon" -- in this case, Rand's definition of "art," which supposedly did not apply to architecture. And how anyone can think her categorizing architecture as an art 10 years earlier in "Art and Cognition," while simultaneously saying that architecture doesn't re-create reality, was just an "error of knowledge" is beyond me.

I mean, how can the most rational woman in the world look right at her own definition of "art," then look right at her own sentence including architecture as an art, then look right at her own sentence saying architecture doesn't re-create reality, all in the opening portion of her essay, and not realize that something is drastically wrong! She evaded! (Though I'm sure it's Nathaniel Branden's fault, not hers. Everything else seems to be. Harumph.)

But hey, this isn't funny! I'm serious! It's going to be in my forthcoming book, The Errors of Ayn Rand, which is coming out right after my first book, The Enemies of Ayn Rand. All I can tell you now is that both books will contain surprises galore. For instance, all the supposed "anti-Objectivists" you keep hearing about? (Of course, you know what I'm talking about. You're one of them, buddy -- and so am I, I'm sure.) Forget it, they don't even come close to qualifying as bona fide enemies of Ayn Rand. It will be like the Christian Judgment Day when all the rabid Fundamentalists find out that they aren't saved, after all. :-)

AK aka REB


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 10:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
>my forthcoming book, The Errors of Ayn Rand, [Roger]

Roger, I sure hope that's a joke and you're not planning to do a book with that title in an intellectual world where her errors have been exaggerated and her good ideas distorted into views she didn't hold by a whole host of incompetent writers. Context: This is a world in which the great injustice in the discussion of Rand's philosophy is that it has been unfairly criticized and inaccurately represented, not one in which -insufficient- attention has been paid to her errors. But instead to the historic and still ungrasped things she got right in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

What your putative book would accomplish is shifting the conversation and the mass media to FURTHER BURY an accurate identification of what Objectivism is.

You might want to consider writing a book for a wider public -defending her BASIC ideas instead!, if you really want to render justice: Rebutting Jeff Walker, Scott Ryan, John Robbins, parts of Ron Merrill's book, and a whole host of religionists who have managed to get used as footnotes for thinkers representing her as a Nietzschean, a materialist, etc.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

I strongly disagree with one part of your post and strongly agree with another.

I don't know if Errors of Ayn Rand is really a book in preparation or that fine female is merely yanking, but frankly I think it would be useful. ARI has adopted precisely the posture you mentioned of hiding Rand's inconsistencies and all ARI has done in reality is to discredit itself for historical accuracy and paint itself as a zealot organization. I do not think promoting ignorance or hiding facts are useful at all. After all, Rand's inconsistencies are not the same as the information on how to build a nuclear explosion device.

The only way for philosophical truth to win out is with the full truth. Nothing less will do, even in the context of today's world that you mentioned. I submit that Rand's hidden inconsistencies are used with much greater and deadlier effect than anything else. The charge of hypocrisy for Objectivism is far worse than something like the Beethoven or Russell or hair-trigger moral outrage - or even the affair - things. Or all the other similar things we all know and love.

Now here is the part that I do agree with. Yes, the opponents of Rand you mentioned - and other opponents as well - need to be addressed and refuted (or at times agreed with, when they get it right). The problem with the vast majority of books criticizing Objectivism is that they condemn the whole thing and are very much ANTI Objectivism and ANTI Rand. They are thus condemned outright by Objectivists. The ideas all sort of get washed away by vitriol.

Well, addressing these ideas is one project on my own agenda for the future. Any system of ideas that cannot refute other ideas will be - and will stay - marginalized. Those who claim to understand Objectivism more than all others run from these guys and slam TOC for inviting them to conferences. But addressing them is one thing TOC got right in spades.

This head-in-the-sand and airbrushing attitude reminds me of something I blurted out last month in at a restaurant with Luke Setzer.

Luke: Who do you think are the greatest enemies of Objectivism?
Me: Objectivists.

That popped out without even thinking. It almost seemed like somebody else said it. We both just sat there laughing for awhile.

But think about it. If you go by sales figures, Rand's fiction is still by far the No. 1 agent for spreading Objectivism to people unacquainted with it - much more so than any organization or writer that came after her. So who or what actually is holding Objectivism back if not its own practitioners?

Michael

Post 8

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 Incredible, isn't it, what lengths some people will go to to "save the phenomenon" -- in this case, Rand's definition of "art," which supposedly did not apply to architecture. And how anyone can think her categorizing architecture as an art 10 years earlier in "Art and Cognition," while simultaneously saying that architecture doesn't re-create reality, was just an "error of knowledge" is beyond me.

I mean, how can the most rational woman in the world look right at her own definition of "art," then look right at her own sentence including architecture as an art, then look right at her own sentence saying architecture doesn't re-create reality, all in the opening portion of her essay, and not realize that something is drastically wrong! She evaded! (Though I'm sure it's Nathaniel Branden's fault, not hers. Everything else seems to be. Harumph.)


Perhaps this was a case of using 'art' in two different meanings - (1) in the sense of contemplation [the fine arts], and (2) in the sense of the nature of beauty and form [what, properly, is aesthetics].....

(Edited by robert malcom on 2/05, 2:18pm)


Post 9

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 6:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

I have to admit I often disagree with you, but it seems like you've really been on a role lately.

I guess I'm just saying this because you mentioned something about value transcending normal disagreements.  And since my default state probably comes off as antagonistic to your ideas I want to sincerely state that this is not the case with your post 6... as well as several recent posts of yours.

I didn't want the sentiment to stay guarded behind sarcasm I've used recently.

---Landon


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 7:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Malcom -- No, I don't think Rand's ERROR about architecture being art but not being re-creation of reality was due to her using "art" in two different senses.

But Robert, suppose we were to grant your premise that Rand was in fact using "art" on the same page with two different meanings: (1) art is re-creation of reality and (2) art is non-utilitarian, for contemplation only. It is clear from that page of "Art and Cognition" that Rand held that (1) architecture is NOT a re-creation of reality, and that (2) architecture IS utilitarian -- and yet, my friends, that architecture still, somehow, IS ART, in spite of satisfying NEITHER of those attributes of art.

This is not just a confusion by readers (such as myself) due to Rand's carelessly mixing together two different definitions of art. That would be bad enough, considering what a careful thinker and writer she is held to be. No, it is worse than that. It is a blatant contradiction. She held architecture to be art in defiance of BOTH of the meanings she attributed to "art", OK?

And no, I am not a "Rand-hater" or an "anti-Objectivist." I'm just sick and tired of people making excuses for her ERRORS, as though she never made a mistake (other than to trust the Brandens, don't you know). And this is not the only ERROR Rand ever made and didn't 'fess up to. It's just one of the ones that aggravates me the most.

Phil Coates -- as for your concern about the dangers of my writing such a book as The Errors of Ayn Rand, or The Enemies of Ayn Rand, for that matter, don't worry! (Yes, Michael, the fine faux femme fatale was yanking the crank, but more in irritation than in playfulness.)

I'm more interested, with the time I have remaining on earth, with positive accomplishments. But since I'm pretty sure you and I are not 100% in agreement about what Rand got right or what are her "basic ideas," are you really sure you want to urge me forward to such a project? I mean, I trust my "instincts" (i.e., my internalized grasp and comfort) about Objectivism, but do you? :-)

If and when I do a book about Objectivism, it will not just be an attempt to more appealingly or persuasively "chew" her frozen-in-amber-circa-1982 system. I'm more interested in truth than in justifying the canon. Any book I do will thus be for the purpose of presenting MY version of Objectivism (which, by the way, I regard as an OPEN system). I will be building on what I think is right in Rand's system, while correcting what I think is wrong. And while there is a lot more of the former (else, why would I bother!), there's also enough of the latter to warrant more than a throw-away comment or footnote.

So, in that sense, yes, I am primarily concerned with an accurate portrayal of Objectivism -- but not without setting straight the record on the ways I think she (and others, notably, Peikoff) have botched it. For instance, when I discuss free will vs. determinism, or the mind-body problem, I will be arguing the case against the view of Rand et al in terms of the more basic ideas of hers (in metaphysics and epistemology) that I agree with. When I discuss art and architecture (as I did in my JARS essay, vol. 5, no. 2), I argued against the view of Rand et al in terms of the more basic ideas of hers (in aesthetics) that I agree with. And so on.

REB (aka AK)

P.S. -- Sorry, folks, for writing such a long, non-funny post on the Humor list, but once the dust settles after poking fun at the "metaphysically insignificant" (the vitriol sprayers and error airbrushers), the logical follow-up is with -- what else -- the metaphysically significant: getting it right!


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.