RoR: Forum

I thought her strawman misrepresentation of the conservative argument from tradition was Rand at her unfortunate worst. She was right about their religiosity, though. Her characterization of liberals as defenders of reason and progress is no longer current; she noted this in connection with the rise of environmentalism a decade later, and I suspect she'd say much the same about the rise of the religious left. In fact, Tracinski has been saying this for a couple of years in TIA.

Post 1

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 1:51pm

Peter, I'm not clear on what you mean by "her strawman misrepresentation of the conservative argument from tradition" - could you elaborate a little on that?

Post 2

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 4:18pm

Shorthand isn't my thing, but I made some quick notes keyed to the time readings. These are not exact quotes.

2:08 The status quo regardless of what it might be;
2:22 Not because it is right but because it is old;
3:02 Uncritical respect;
3:20 Old as a standard of value...merely because it is ancient.

I've never come across a conservative, in print or in person, who believed this. They say that established beliefs, practices and social formations command our attention for having stood the test of time. Aristotle, whom she purported to admire, said this about virtually any subject he took up. She similarly mischaracterized the Nichomachean Ethics as merely a catalog of what eminent men of the past had said.

Post 3

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 7:58pm

As to the conservatives, I've know quite a few including my relatives on both sides of the family, and friends of the family and I have heard them argue from tradition. I'm not remembering any discussions from 1961 - the time of that recording - but I can tell you that some conservatives today argue from tradition. O'Reilly, who calls himself more of a populist than a conservative, uses "tradition" as a cover to smuggle religion into government - "This isn't an issue of separation of church and state, it is observance of our Judeo-Christian traditions." [paraphrase]

In many ways, emotional calls to patriotism and nationalism are couched in terms of honoring American traditions. Tradition is given as an explanation for why some actions should be taken or not taken.

Everything that is old has "stood the test of time" and we know that many of these old things are also wrong - like totalitarianism. I would say that matches your descriptions from 2:22 and 3:20. And there is the word 'Conservative' which tends one towards the status quo or going back to resurrect older practices.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 12/28, 8:05pm)

Post 4

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 10:17pm

Peter,

============
She similarly mischaracterized the Nichomachean Ethics as merely a catalog of what eminent men of the past had said.
============

Can/will you provide a quote for that?

The reason I ask is that I'm under the impression that Rand approved of Peikoff's book: Ominous Parallels -- and in Ominous Parallels, Peikoff had this to say about Aristotle's ethics:

===================
There is no future for the world except through a rebirth of the Aristotelian approach to philosophy. This would require an Aristotelian affirmation of the reality of existence, of the sovereignty of reason, of life on earth�and of the splendor of man.

Aristotle and Objectivism agree on fundamentals and, as a result, on this last point, also. Both hold that man can deal with reality, can achieve values, can live non-tragically. Neither believes in man the worm or man the monster; each upholds man the thinker and therefore man the hero. Aristotle calls him �the great-souled man.� Ayn Rand calls him Howard Roark, or John Galt.
=====================
From:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/aristotle.html

Now, if Rand agreed with Ominous Parallels, and if Ominous Parallels praises Aristotle's ethics -- all but literally "equating it" with Objectivist ethics! -- then it's hard to believe that she said what you say she did (most-specifically because of the implication it would have regarding a necessary disparagement of her own ethics in the process).

Ed

Post 5

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 11:36am

Rand's remarks on the Ethics are in "The Objectivist Ethics," anthologized in VOS. Interestingly, that lecture was from the same year as this video clip. She apparently came to respect the book in later years. The last issue of The Objectivist quotes it favorably, and Gotthelf, who knew her personally, has said the same. I'm not surprised to learn that the Peikoff circle has memory-holed her earlier statement as much as possible.
(Edited by Peter Reidy on 12/29, 11:38am)

Post 6

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 11:52am

Peter,

I don't mind so much what it is that folks wrote early on. I wrote some things early on in my life as a Christian socialist which I don't agree with, now. I think it's okay that I wrote that bullshit then.

However, for some folks, there's this false pride that they try to obtain by saying that they've been 'right and wise' all along from the moment of their first words (or from puberty, or whatever). Rand may be guilty of this false pride, but it's equally or perhaps even more wrong to use an early writing of someone to characterize them as a thinker -- when their writing changed during their writing career.

A while back, there was a participant here who used early writings by Rand to characterize her position on Individual Rights. I quoted later writing by Rand, after her refined and reformed thinking, which contradicted the interpretation which he had tried to stick onto Rand (by looking only at her early work, disregarding what she wrote later).

It's wrong to do that. It doesn't take into account that humans undergo moral and intellectual progress. It's old, tribalistic, mysticism where -- if you listen to someone (or follow what they say) -- you have got to believe in them as a perfect deity. It actually says something about you. If you need a god in order to take advice, then you have a glaring moral imperfection, yourself.

There's a reason that the Bible says that Jesus lived without ever having sinned, but it's not a "good" reason.

Ed

Post 7

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 1:59pm

Ah hah! I just knew you weren't morally perfect Ed!

Post 8

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 4:21pm

Re #3:
I have no reason to doubt what you say about your relatives or O'Reilly. This does not amount to the position Rand imputes to them: old is always sufficient proof of good, even in the standard counter-example cases (you named totalitarianism, most people name slavery).

You say

Everything that is old has "stood the test of time"

Not exactly. Everything that is old and still useful / admired / taken seriously / what have you has stood the test of time. This is easy to see with artifacts. Houses, furniture or musical instruments that are more than a century old and still in use are presumably good examples of their kind, while most have not stood the test of time, and nobody misses them.

Re #6:
We agree that Rand changed her mind about Aristotle's ethics and that her later statements were better, but this isn't because they came later. One would be wrong to cite The Little Street or the original We the Living as the source of her theory of rights, but this case isn't like that one. In 1961 she was at the height of her powers. In 1971 (last issue of The Objectivist) she was gearing down toward retirement. In 1982 (publication of The Ominous Parallels) she was in the final months of her life. I'm glad she changed her mind. On the other hand, David Brock was much better 15 years ago and Greenspan 45 years ago, before they changed their minds.

Post 9

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 9:46pm

Peter,

==============
Re #6:
We agree that Rand changed her mind about Aristotle's ethics and that her later statements were better, but this isn't because they came later.
==============

I don't see your point. Rand changed the way she spoke of something, she improved it, and you blame her for her initial imperfection. Critics do this, too. They find something someone said early on (because that's when we're most likely to say wrong things) and they harp on it as if it mattered -- as if it's proper moral judgment to look at someone's first, rather than their final, attempt at something. Here's an analogy:

===================
Premise 1
Lance Armstrong fell when he first tried to ride a bike.

Premise 2
Good bike riders don't fall.

Conclusion
Therefore, Lance Armstrong is not a good bike rider.
===================

Do you see how narrow-minded this kind of thinking is?

You say Rand's improvements aren't necessarily better because they came later. Well, you're right, but how does that matter? My point wasn't that Rand's later statements are better because they are newer than her older statements -- but that they are better because Rand was better (as a thinker). It's Rand's moral progress -- not the generic progress of "time" -- that counts.

It's the reason that it's wrong to cite her early work disdainfully. It lacks perspective. It's unjust.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/29, 9:48pm)

Post 10

Wednesday, January 7, 2009 - 9:35pm