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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 3:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's got to be the water, filtered thru kiwi, that they're drinking.....

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 12:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As a "newbie" to Objectivism, I fail to see how any of this furthers its cause. It seems to me, as an outsider, that the Objectivist movement is as nasty and backbiting as politics and religion, and is certainly discouraging and off-putting.
I don't think any of this is furthering "the cause," and proves Oscar Wilde was correct when he said the worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity.

I haven't read PAR or PARC, but I've read enough about them to decide to avoid them.

Wasn't the point of Objectivism "rational self-interest?" Whatever happened to Roark's "But I don't think of you?" If BB and NB were so damaging to the cause, ignore them and move on!



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Speaking from experience... If you haven't read anything yet and don't get a lot of comments involving it just avoid the whole thing.

But after the 9,000,000,000th time a "refutation" of Rand's theories is offered as "Rand had an affair and her group was a cult"... you might want to pick up PARC.

---Landon


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivist movement is as nasty and backbiting as politics and religion, and is certainly discouraging and off-putting.

There are many objectivists who are as nice as you, Ms. Peri.


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 5:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,
But after the 9,000,000,000th time a "refutation" of Rand's theories is offered as "Rand had an affair and her group was a cult"...

Can you be more specific? Who has "refuted" which Rand's theories the 9,000,000,000th time? Or do you think that Rand hadn't had an affair and her group hadn't acted cultishly?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/28, 5:32am)


Post 65

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

Someone here has to know his or her way around the publishing biz a little better than I do.

My limited understanding is that reliable sales figures for most books aren't available from any centralized source.  Authors get royalty statements and (assuming there's been no finagling) they can arrive at the correct numbers.  But that information is, as you noted, highly dispersed.  And publishers aren't inclined to give it out to just anyone who asks.

12 to 13,000 is considered really good sales, for a university press book.  (Academic books often sell in the hundreds... including all the copies bought by libraries.)  You shouldn't assume, by the way, that copies bought by libraries will "gather dust."  Some books may sit on a shelf without being checked out for 50 years; others may have people waiting in line to read them.  On the average, though, one should assume that each library book will have multiple readers.  Publishers do, and their pricing policies reflect that assumption.  If they think most copies of their book will be bought by libraries, they charge more.

How many copies of The Russian Radical (outside of libraries) were bought by non-Randians is definitely worth knowing.  But how would you find out?  People who buy books aren't normally given a user survey to complete... or a reasonable incentive to return one.  You could go to the Humanities Citation Index or the Social Sciences Citation Index, see how often RR was cited, and then sort out the articles or books by non-Randians that cited it from the articles or books by Randians.  Somewhat interesting, but tedious, and not the whole story.

For perspective here: Rand's fiction has massively outsold her nonfiction.  And most (or is it all?) of her nonfiction, in turn, has outsold any nonfiction works about her philosophy written by others.  Does anyone know approximate sales figures on Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand?  Do they even exceed the sales figures on Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? As a trade paperback with marketing muscle behind it, in the same series as Rand's own nonfiction, OPAR would have to lead the pack by quite a margin.

More perspective: How many copies of Tara Smith's new book will need to be sold, to get the impact that she is seeking?  The publisher slapped the $80 tag on the book because it expects most copies to go to libraries, and a few to go to academics who are willing to shell out for a personal copy.  (Most Randians are unlikely to buy it until it goes paperback.)  If a couple of thousand copies were to be picked up by non-Randian academics, wouldn't that do the job?

Last bit of perspective:  How many units of Mr. Valliant's book have been purchased by non-Randians (not counting libraries)?

Robert Campbell


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,
Well, Ms. Rand *did* have an affair, didn't she? And so what if she did? Does that take away her accomplishments? The point about Ms. Rand is that she was Idealistic--as are many great thinkers--and she didn't always live up to her own philosophy.

Once again, so what? It doesn't make her philosophy any less valid. Thomas Jefferson had slaves all of his life and may have fathered children with one of those slaves--does that make the Declaration of Independence worthless? I think we can all agree that it doesn't. We accept the fact that Jefferson was a flawed human being with a shining ideal of what Man can and should be, and his personal life fell short of that ideal. It doesn't mean that we can't respect his accomplishments and strive to live up to the ideals.

As for the "cult" charge, well, I think that some Objectivist branches equate people who admit Ms. Rand may not have behaved impeccably at all times as "evil." I haven't heard more denunciations of certain people as being "evil" and "immoral" in any other forum except organized religion (cults).

If the shoe fits....



Post 67

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ms. Peri, what do you exactly mean when you
say " She had an affair"  What specific meaning do you give to the word "affair" in Rand's case?

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/28, 1:44pm)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm saying that's the main "refutation" I hear, personally any time I get involved in a discussion with someone who is familiar with her.

 I'm not saying she didn't have an affair. I'm not saying "her" group (you know the NATHANIEL BRANDEN INSTITUTE) didn't act cultish. My whole issue is any cult like behavior on the part of Objectivists is a chosen behavior... you can follow your own mind or you can try to live up to what you think someone else wants you to be.

But honestly if the latter is all you want, there are hundreds of groups far more willing and capable of accepting that type of behavior. I don't care if people stunted their own development to try to fit in with what they thought Rand wanted even if she did want it (which it seems according to every thing I've read wasn't the case) that was their own choice.

It's like the kids who get the wrong message from "Fight Club," you can only blame the outside factors so much, whether it's a "consumer culture" trying to destroy your will through advertising, or a "moralizing authoritarian" trying to reduce the complex processes of your mind to that of a Pavlovian dog, you still ultimately make the choice to do so and others should not be blamed for your bad decision.

But then again none of this is a refutation but I don't think I've ever had a conversation with a non-Objectivist or non-objectivist-friendly person which didn't stagnate permanently on this point once it was raised and never return to the ideas.

I tend to think these type of arguments are worse than just bad logic attempting to refute the ideas. The whole purpose of Objectivism is that it is a PRACTICABLE philosophy. Trying to turn it into just another form of idealism that nobody could live up to anyway is something I find discomforting from someone who claims to actually get something from it. If you honestly think that why are you still defending it on any level... it has failed by one of its own prime criteria. No honest person could continue to defend something to any degree when it's proven itself failed and wrong by the very standard it set for itself.

A lot of people see this and just choose to move on from the philosophy after hearing such arguments, I can respect that. Do you think that if I was convinced by arguments like that I'd still call myself an Objectivist or offer Rand any praise without a hefty disclaimer (like say as big of one I would offer if I noticed Hitler or Stallin happened to be right about one thing).

---Landon

(Edited by Landon Erp on 5/28, 1:59pm)


Post 69

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,

Your above post is not easy for me to read, but the bottom line that I get is that you think that if Rand is a bit short of being perfect, then her philosophy is indefensible for you. ("If you honestly think that why are you still defending it on any level... it has failed by one of its own prime criteria...")

Did I get that right?


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 5:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No. The idea is if Objectivism isn't practicable (or only hypocritically practicable like say Christianity or Islam) as arguments like "Even she couldn't do it and she came up with it" imply  it failed one of the main criteria by which it was to be judged (it's total practicality at all times).

It is a faulty philosophy and deserves no further attention.

Granted Rand could have been a hypocrite and the philosophy 100% practicable by others, but that's not what arguments like that imply.

Arguments like that say it's no better (or worse) than any other system of thought and hypocrisy is an unavoidable fact of life.

But to use a marketing analogy say I'm offering for sale a detergent that will get out any stain on any type of fabric and not make the colors fade.  Now say that the first part is true (it will get any stain off any type of fabric) but that includes the colors from the fabric.... Are you going to use my detergent to wash your favorite electric blue shirt?

---Landon

(Edited by Landon Erp on 5/28, 5:53pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, so just change "indefensible" to "isn't practicable" in my previous statement, i.e., "if Rand is a bit short of being perfect, then it would imply that her philosophy isn't practical for you". Would this be a more or less accurate assessment of what you are saying here?


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Key thing is that Objectivism is a philosophy that says that there are definite right and wrong answers. Impractical lowers it down to a simple subjective choice.

Again if all philosophy is is a simple subjective choice a philosophy that says otherwise is wrong.

As to whether Rand personally managed to live by it, not necessarily essential to the arguement even though I think she did. I never had to deal with the issue of this because of my comic background (even if Rand didn't live it, Steve Ditko did and I'm doing my best to do so).  Thus the philosophy was proven in a real life setting.

The implication in arguements about it's impracticality devalue it as a whole. So much so many people just move on from it

It's not just about Rand it's about does this philosophy work and is it what it says it is. I see a lot of people saying no and still calling theirselves objectivists.

---Landon


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dear Landon,

I'm not an Objectivist; I'm exploring it at this point. I agree withs some of her points and don't agree with others. I am aware that she once said you had to believe all of it--or none of it, which strikes me as--well, dogmatic. I would like to learn more about the ideas; I just happened to become interested at a time when PARC was just published, and it was the topic du jour.

My core values are individualistic in nature, and in creating the best framework for an individual to reach his or her full potential, while managing to get along with other individuals at the same time. Rand interested me as an individualist and a strong woman who founded a school of thought. I went online to find forums in which to ask questions about that philosophy and found, instead, a lot of bickering, denouncing, and name-calling of the Brandens and this, that and the other person.

I'm still interested in Objectivism; I'm confused as to whom to approach with questions.



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Point taken. And most of what I was saying (I'd say 90%) wasn't directed at you. It's just refering to my experience and what I've seen.

Just keep studying think it through, don't go to fast, follow those inclinations to question when you think she (or anyone) is wrong and whether or not you ever take the name you'll be fine.

I'm probably coming off a little Randroidish at the moment but it's just that I took a long time to come to the conclusions I did... I didn't rush it and I came to those conclusions only when I was convinced if this is the approach everyone took (hell to everything) the world would be a better place. Not everyone does.

---Landon


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 6:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But I didn't answer another part of the question. Read any of the non-fiction? Ever see that little line that says "Nathianel Branden is no longer associated with me, my philosophy of Objectivism, Or the objectivist newsletter"

If someone came up with something and was that bothered that someone might associate her with someone in particular I'd want to know went on behind it. I'd want to know who I could count on in a pinch.

---Landon


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 7:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 I went online to find forums in which to ask questions about that philosophy and found, instead, a lot of bickering, denouncing, and name-calling of the Brandens and this, that and the other person.
Ignore it.

Or, you could research what the bickering is all about and make up your own mind.
These arguments have been going on for over 30 years, and chances are good they won't end before another 20 have passed. 

Lots of people, very smart people, are extremely passionate about these issues.  Find out why first before slamming the pointer on the desk. :)  Get a handle on the history of the movement. It's really very interesting and exciting.


 


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,

Doesn't the practicability of Objectivism depend on what is being said to be practicable?

I've been reading Tara Smith's new book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.  Her chapter on pride includes a long, involved defense of Rand's notion of moral perfection (pp. 236-243).

Smith hardly ever disagrees with anything that Leonard Peikoff says in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, a book that she footnotes at least once per page.  I've noted just two disagreements in her entire book (and she makes neither of them explicit). 

One of the two pertains to perfection.

In OPAR, Peikoff insists that anyone can be the moral equivalent of the heroes in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  For him, there is no question about moral perfection meaning Roarkhood or Galthood.

Smith refrains from making any such claim in her discussion of moral perfection.  Instead, she says "On Rand's view, a person is perfect when he does his best" (p. 238).

So who has correctly understood Rand's notion of moral perfection?

And if it's Peikoff who has gotten it right, wouldn't the implication be that Objectivism is impracticable if Ayn Rand fell even one iota short of Roarkhood or Galthood?

Robert Campbell


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Might be worth checking out. But I'm sensing a sentiment that it's a sacrificial desire to "adhere to Objectivist ethics."

Another part of the system is that not only is it supposed to be practical, you're supposed to benefit from it. If you're not benefiting from it, that's another place the philosophy fails.

I also think if we're discussing the fiction, what about Eddie Willers he had total integrity just like Roark, just like Galt. A breach of morality only when happens when your faced with a decision that effects the course of your life and or the people you come into contact with and the only way you can break your moral code is on purpose.

And if you are going to have to break your moral code at some point then moral/practical isn't a false dichotomy.

Objectivism is falling apart at the seams.

---Landon


Post 79

Monday, May 29, 2006 - 4:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon, you stated,
Objectivism is falling apart at the seams.
Good for you that you intuit some serious flaws in Objectivism.

Inconsistent/impractical philosophical movements, when built around a supreme leader, typically start to tumble when the leader dies, or when that person leaves the active life. The remaining question is when. Roughly, this is the case of Objectivism.

To me, in the recent years Objectivism has become the last refuge of atheists with a certain love for reason and capitalism.

But let's keep it in the proper perspective: what is important in this world is not Objectivism, but man and his endeavor for individual and collective fulfillment. In this, the good novelist Ayn Rand was partially correct.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 5/29, 4:26am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.