Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ellen,

When I say Rand's nonfiction writing, of course I meant her nonfiction philosophical writing about Objectivism, not her political articles or letters.

I am not clear about what you mean about not being right historically. If you mean Rand did not specifically say the goal of her fiction writing was to project an ideal man until after Atlas Shrugged, I might agree (but I would still have to look at her stuff on The Fountainhead to be sure). If you look through her journal notes, though, trying to project an ideal man was mostly what she did. See, for example, her character notes in 1920's for Danny Renahan based on the murderer Hickman in her unwritten work The Little Street. She was groping back then, but it was definitely in the direction of projecting an ideal man.

Greg has twisted this to such an extent, he makes it look as if she was saying that she contrived philosophy in order to provide support for a particular kind of person. This isn't the only way in which he misses Rand, just doesn't "get" her psyche. As I commented a couple times on ARCHN, I do not recognize Ayn Rand from Greg's depictions of her.

I still have to finish that book, but there are definitely parts in it that I have read where I got the same impression.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't answer for Greg. You can put it to him on his site if you like. To me however, passionate belief in something can blind you to reality. In fact it's probably the single biggest cause of such blindness. I'm not going to call it deception; more like self-deception. But it can be a fine line, particularly when your ego's at stake, and when you put your ego at the centre of your philosophy. After all, you don't debate, you don't contend..you know.

Daniel,

I will take you up on that. Let me go through your site a little and catch up. It's been a while. (I have been cheating on you by studying Internet marketing instead of reading your site as part of my philosophic duties. :) ) Then I will find the appropriate place to make my comments.

I agree that passionate belief can blind you to reality, but not that it inevitably does so, nor even that it is probably the single biggest cause of such blindness. For instance, I do not think the concentration camp guards in WWII were blinded to the reality of what they were doing by passionate belief.

I am much more inclined to say the refusal to fully engage the rational faculty is the single biggest cause, and I often see this happen because a person finds it more convenient in short term benefits to refuse to think through the implications of what he is faced with. This not only leads to blindness, this is also what I see that leads to rationalizations.

Furthermore, sometimes a person will fixate his intellectual being on a pet theory and it sounds so good to him that he will seek vindication anywhere he can find it, even in the face of undeniable fact. For instance, with Nyquist, I see this attitude in his pet theory that Rand put together a philosophy for the sole purpose of projecting an ideal man. This even leads him to make serious blunders in the name of declaring victory for himself. Look here, for instance, from Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature:

No one who is educated in these matters and is endowed with the ability to think critically can ever regard Objectivism as anything other than a mistake. (p. 367)

The mistake he alludes to is obviously that the philosophy was made for the wrong reason. That's his pet theory.

But would you say that people like David Kelley, or hell, even Ellen Stuttle, are "uneducated in these matters" and do not have the ability to think? There are oodles of educated and intelligent people who do not regard Objectivism as a mistake. Not "no one" like Nyquist claims. That is beyond rhetoric. That is a complete misidentification to declare victory worthy of a James Valliant. (btw - I think Nyquist is WAAAAAY above Valliant as an intellectual, despite often doing precisely what he complains about with Rand.)

To be fair, I also see this doggedness with pet theory in Rand at times. For instance, she had a pet theory that she could program all of the emotions in her subconscious and bent over backwards at times to justify that. It got weird at times. There are a few pet theories like that with her, but not her whole philosophy like Nyquist claims.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transcribed version Edited version

I don't read those letters. My office has certain instructions I don't read those letters, but my office has instructions

and are carrying them out. My staff and my attorneys are and carries them out. I don't cancel subscriptions if someone

taking care of that. Yes, I most certainly cancel subscribers disagrees with me--that's his loss. But I do when the letters

for the following reason: Not if they disagree with me. If are rude and crude. It's not an issue of ideology, but of

they write a lot of nonsense, fine, if they want to express manners. I reject the modern concept of manners; I don't

themselves, I don't have to read it. It's when they are rude have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to,

and crude and begin a letter something like, "Well, you anyone who doesn't know how to disagree with me politely.

know you are wrong" and go on from there. Those letters...

it's an issue of manners.

Roger,

Is it me, or is this paragraph garbled?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very unsound epistemological process—by Objectivist standards—going on with Valliant if he is sincere. I believe he is part of the time, but, of course, the other part just outright lying and manipulation.

The process is to discount the law of causality.

Here is an extreme example of what I mean for the sake of clarity. Suppose a bomb is tested and you observe that it makes a certain kind of hole. Then you look at a place where there has been a hole for some time. It has an identical size and shape as the present one from the bomb test and you know there were plenty of the same kinds of bombs readily available at the time it was made. You hear someone say, "One of those bombs went off back then."

You challenge this by asking, "How do you know? Did you see it? Did anyone you know see it? It could have been anything, even a band of worker ants. We need evidence."

This is a very unhealthy thinking process and I do not consider it on the same level as respect for the facts. Facts have causes when they are events. Any reason-based thinker knows this. And Objectivists know that entities are the sources of causes.

If anyone wants to see an example of this, it just happened clearly. Of course it was clouded over a bit by Valliant double-speak, but it is clear enough to discern.

Here is the setting. Robert Campbell put forth a hypothesis here. He was essentially arguing against Valliant's boneheaded insinuation and/or assertion (when it suits him) that Nathaniel Branden was Rand's enforcer at NBI without her knowledge and without her approval. In order give a reason for not believing this boneheaded assertion, Robert mentioned that there is no documented case of her ever expressing regret after the break for Nathaniel having driven off someone, nor is there any documented case of her ever having welcomed such a person back in her circle. Valliant misquoted and misinterpreted this as usual, then Robert put forth the following hypothetical example:

OK, we're going to have take this reeealllll sllloww...

Suppose that in 1965, or thereabouts, Nathaniel Branden took it upon himself to chew out a member of Ayn Rand's outer circle. We'll call this hypothetical outer circle person Joe Doakes.

Joe thought that Nathaniel Branden had been needlessly harsh on him, over what looked to him like a petty misunderstanding. What's more, Joe, having no conception of Nathaniel Branden's extensive freelance humiliating and denouncing, assumed that Ayn Rand was aware of what Nathaniel Branden was doing, and fully approved. Joe thus concluded that Ayn Rand herself was in favor of all of this needless harshness.

Joe didn't quit going to NBI events right away, but found that his interest in such activities was ebbing, along with his desire to hear Ayn Rand speak, or converse with her or with her close associates. No longer trusting the top people in the organization to give him a fair shake, after a few months Joe left Ayn Rand's outer circle entirely. Soon he lost touch with everyone there.

Now let's fast-forward to 1973, or whenever. Ayn Rand asks, say, Allan Blumenthal, "What ever happened to Joe Doakes? I remember him coming around a few years ago... he always had good ideas about the topic we were just discussing."

And Allan Blumenthal replies, "I happened to run into Joe last month. I asked him why we hadn't heard from him for so long. I thought he would say his company transferred him to Germany, or that he decided he didn't agree with Objectivism. You know what he told me? He said he got chewed out ferociously by Nathaniel Branden over what he thought was a minor misunderstanding. He stopped expecting fair treatment from anyone here, and pretty soon he completely lost interest in our activities."

Whereupon Ayn Rand exclaims, "Nathan did that?! He was a worse bastard than I ever realized! I should never have trusted him to protect my interests. I wonder how many other values I lost because I let him do that. Could you arrange a meeting with Joe and try to persuade him to come back? Do you know of anyone else like Joe who thought I approved of the mistreatment Nathan was meting out?"

Has Mr. Valliant ever heard one authenticated Joe Doakes story?

Unless there are such stories, one of the following must be true.

Either

Ayn Rand knew, at least in general terms, of Nathaniel Branden's "enforcement" activities during the NBI years, approved of them at the time, and did not change her mind about them after breaking with him.

or

Ayn Rand, till the day she died, over 13 years later, never learned of Nathaniel Branden's dastardly and overweening behavior during the NBI days, and never realized that he had been in the habit of chewing out, humiliating, and even excommunicating people she did not think deserved being chewed out, humiliated, or excommunicated.

This has started taking on a life of its own and has become "The Joe Doakes Case."

Valliant typically did what I claim he does (ignore the law of causality when it comes to Rand doing anything wrong and try to cover it up with pseudo-interest in the facts by asking for examples), as shown here. Apropos, this habit never inhibits his own propensity to engage in quite elaborate speculations when the issue is Rand's superhuman intellectual prowess or the innate evil/mediocre nature of the Brandens.

The demand is for an example, sir, even of Branden's "dastardly deeds," and even if he's the one who should've regretted it.

To have a "Joe Doakes" case implies having at least one example to consider of Branden's "freelance" activities. (Then, of course, we would still need to know if Rand had reason to know or recall said person, etc.)

Then a poster I have not seen in a long time (William Nevin) popped up to give his own take on "The Joe Doakes Case," where he elaborated even more fantasy than Valliant and took the evil Nathaniel to the extent where he missed the point of the Doakes affair altogether. So to correct him, Valliant engaged in suspending the law of causality in the manner I mentioned at the start of this post. Look at this mess: Bill.

First, Mr. Doakes should have had a social life outside of Objectivism and Objectivists. Unless he was planning on being a philosopher or activist (and, even then, one should still have a life), should he have made a "movement" the sole focus of all of his non-work-related activities?

Also, was such an innocent as Doakes ever, in fact, "canceled"?

In any event, would your Mr. Doakes have tried writing to Rand after the villain had been given the sack by Rand (since she had even indicated Branden's "screening" role in "TWIMC.")

See, we still need the real-world example with its facts to see what Rand herself should've expressed regret about.

She did express a general regret, of course, in "To Whom It May Concern," for her errors of knowledge with respect to him, and she did what she could to withdraw her endorsement of him. But I'm not sure what Rand knew and, therefore, what she should've done about it.

If one can imagine poor Mr. Doakes getting screened out by your villain, after being canceled by your villain, after being berated by your villain -- then we must also attempt to imagine how Rand learned of him, or, at least, of people like him.

I agree that Rand had some degree of responsibility to investigate the matter, as well, but, again, we will need the facts before drawing any untoward implications about Rand.

Are you in a coma from boredom due to Valliant-speak yet? Do you need a translation? Try this one (me speaking, but as if I were Valliant):

"We know that a bomb existed back then and we know that it was able to make holes like the ones we see today and we know there are rumors of victims of some bombs going off in the past. But we need to see an example of a victim who was there and saw it and was actually blown to smithereens before we can reasonably assume that a bomb really did explode back then. If you can't produce such a victim, then we don't know if a bomb, especially that kind of bomb, really went off."

In other words, we cannot ever look at a negative effect and determine its cause if that cause was Rand based on her general behavior. We must even disregard eyewitnesses when they are available, since they are all evil anyway when they report that Rand did someone dirty. The law of causality is suspended in for Ayn Rand.

That, by the way, is an attribute of a true goddess. She determines her own causation.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you ask him if he knew that he'd truncated and de-contexted the Playboy quote? If yes, did he answer that question? Along with his diagnosing me as well as Rand?

Hi Ellen,

Here's what I wrote to Greg.

Hi Greg

Occasional ARCHNBlog commenter Ellen Stuttle has taken you to task here for an elision of the words "As a novelist," from Rand's Playboy interview quote:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=52235

Do you have a view on this? I personally don't think it affects your overall thesis. I think the key point is the "philosophy is the necessary means to this end" bit. But you may care to respond. I'm a member of this forum, so I can post on your behalf if you don't want to join.

best

Daniel

Asking him why, or if he knew he'd elided it seemed unnecessary. He elided it, end of story. Like DF, it seems to me to be redundant anyhow. Even if it wasn't, I'd have to see a pattern of such elisions to get to "dishonest." I haven't seen them. You're welcome to put the question directly to him at the ARCHNblog if you have such suspicions, if you haven't already.

As to whether he "gets" her psyche or not, I can't say. I didn't know her. From my point of view he "gets" it, but lots of people disagree with me...;-) As Nyquist says, he doesn't have access to her mind. He can only judge her intentions by her writings, what she says here and there. Few people unambiguously state the intentions of their lives for the convenience of later commentators, so there is always some guesswork involved. Feel free to refute his hypothesis, AFAICS Nyquist doesn't have anything against disputation or contention..;-).

Mike K:

The mistake he alludes to is obviously that the philosophy was made for the wrong reason. That's his pet theory.

Sure it is. All people have pet theories, and these very often obscure the truth. This is Critical Rationalism 101. Hence the vital importance of disputation, contention, debate - all those mortal intellectual sins that Rand says only the "enemies" of Objectivism indulge in. Nyquist, having read his Popper, even closes his introduction with a para (I don't have it with me) that invites criticism of his book, and to have his mistakes pointed out to him. Sure, this is easy to preach and difficult to practise. This was true of Popper himself, who in person it seems could be a very nasty little man. But I've yet to come across such an epigraph in James Valliant, or even Ayn Rand, so there is an objective difference for you...;-)

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go. This should work. (Sorry for the garbled paragraphs, which were supposed to appear in two, neat, side-by-side columns. I had to force columns with strings of periods.) REB

==============================================================================

Michael -

It's very revealing (or puzzling) to read the tape transcription side by side with the edited version of Rand's 1971 response to a question at Ford Hall Forum about whether she canceled some subscriptions to The Objectivist because of letters written to her by certain subscribers:

Transcribed version..................................................................... Edited version

I don't read those letters. My office has certain instructions........ I don't read those letters, but my office has instructions

and are carrying them out. My staff and my attorneys are............ and carries them out. I don't cancel subscriptions if someone

taking care of that. Yes, I most certainly cancel subscribers........ disagrees with me--that's his loss. But I do when the letters

for the following reason: Not if they disagree with me. If............. are rude and crude. It's not an issue of ideology, but of

they write a lot of nonsense, fine, if they want to express.......... manners. I reject the modern concept of manners; I don't

themselves, I don't have to read it. It's when they are rude........ have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to,

and crude and begin a letter something like, "Well, you............. anyone who doesn't know how to disagree with me politely.

know you are wrong" and go on from there............................... Those letters...it's an issue of manners.

It has already been noted that the concrete example of being "rude and crude" that Rand gave in the transcribed version was omitted from the edited version. But that's not even the half of it! Look at all the other phraseology that was added to the edited version that was not present in Rand's original remarks. (1) "That's his loss." (2) "I reject the modern concept of manners." (3) "I don't have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to, anyone who doesn't know how to disagree with me. These are all things that sound like Rand could have said them, and I wouldn't be surprised if she actually did say them on some other occasion. I'm thinking specifically of her appearance on the Phil Donahue show, where she had the run-in with the snotty audience member. I'd bet dollars to donuts that she uttered (2) and (3) during her huff on Donahue's show. Anyone have a video of that appearance handy, so they can check to see if this is so.

In any case, not only did a significant item disappear down the memory hole (perhaps because it made her look bad?), but also three significant items popped up out of thin air--aka the editor's mind? And why??

Consider the criteria for editing given by Robert Mayhew in his introduction to Ayn Rand Answers:

(1) Most of the editing I did consisted of cutting and line-editing to bring the material closer to the level of conciseness, clarity, and smoothness appropriate to a written work. Very little had to be cut out owing to repetition.

(2) I should mention, however that some (but not much) of my editing aimed to clarify working that if left unalterned, might be taken to imply a viewpoint that she explicitly rejected in her written works.

OK, are the above (underscored) deletions and insertions due to a desire for conciseness, clarity, and smoothness? No way.

Are the above deletions and insertions meant to clarify wording some readers might take to imply a viewpoint she explicitly rejected in her written works? I don't see how they're needed for that purpose.

So, why include the insertions? I suggest that Mayhew had a lot more transcribed material at hand than is indicated in the front of the book, and that he used some of the comments from the Donahue show to "flesh out" the answer, which sorely needed fleshing out, once the deletion of the concrete example was made. That is the only possible sense in which the three inserted comments constitute "editing" in any reasonable sense of the term.

In other words, if I am correct, Mayhew was conflating or blending together Rand's comments about rude questioners from two different occasions, while not indicating that there was more than the one source for the "quote." That's the only way to make sense out of what he has done to Rand's Ford Hall Forum comments. Otherwise, it's not only dishonest, but blatantly irrational and senseless.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To WSS, a factual correction of something JV said in your exchange with him on SOLO -- Robert Campbell has already entered a corrective over there, but I've added an additional detail.

Re the Blumenthals' break with AR, JV writes:

[Here]

Rand did not "break" with the Blumenthals. They broke with her when she was still recovering from surgery.

This example sheds no light whatever on why -- or how easily -- Rand would have broke off with someone.

It also sheds very little light on Rand, in any case, being all about the weeks following her surgery -- but neither am I willing to judge the Blumenthals harshly, not knowing what they were dealing with.

She was not "still recovering from surgery" when they broke with her. They broke with her in the summer of 1977 (Barbara gives the year incorrectly as 1978), which was two or more years after her surgery. They'd stayed around as long as they had because of Frank, but by then they thought he wouldn't be aware of whether they were around or not.

==

To Robert C., a couple minor details about the Crosbys' letter to Elayne:

You wrote on SOLO:

[Here]

In another case, Peter and Jan Crosby, who had been the NBI representatives in Los Angeles, circulated a letter in which they complained that their subscription had been cancelled by Elayne Kalberman, who did not specify a reason in her cancellation letter. Their apparent offenses: They questioned "To Whom It May Concern," and asked Nathaniel and Barbara Branden to speak at the very last NBI get-together in LA.

They didn't actually complain. The letter was a sad farewell to Elayne, whom they'd known for some years by correspondence; it detailed the history of their reactions and actions re the Break. The indication in the letter is that Elayne didn't know the exact reason she was told to refuse their subscription renewal. (Judging from the wording of the letter, they weren't cancelled in mid-subscription, as some persons were; instead their renewal date had come up just then.)

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has the CD of the question period were Ayn Rand denounced homosexuality you will note in the Mayhew book the phase "It's disgusting." is gone.

Yes, and there is no excuse for this. If anyone objects that her expressions of disgust about homosexuality were not part of Objectivism, so what? Mayhew himself emphasizes that the material in Ayn Rand Answers is not part of Objectivism. It was her answers to questions from audience members.

Removing relevant, significant material from this historical record is blatant sanitizing, and for what purpose? Trying to make Rand look less intolerant to newcomers. If Rand later changed her mind and said so, on or off the record, both of her expressions of opinion ought to be on the record, if for no other reason than to illustrate an evolution in her thinking, especially her evaluations, about homosexuality.

George Orwell is rolling over in his grave. Perhaps Ayn Rand is, too.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To WSS, a factual correction of something JV said in your exchange with him on SOLO -- Robert Campbell has already entered a corrective over there, but I've added an additional detail.

Thanks! I hope you forgive me for referring to you earlier as Or Worse, Ellen Stuttle. I really appreciate the time and care you took to type out several items that I have quoted on SOLO.

With regard to Valliant getting the chronology squashed, quelle surprise, as we Canuckistanis say . . . I am beginning to note a few dropped stitches and hurried patching in his quilt of denunciation of Thebrandens. His obsessive attention to Barbara's comment about "fire and the rack" might seem reasonable, if you accept his framing of the remark. But as I noted by checking concordance with PAR, he left off an itty-bitty introductory sentence in his quote. The context was 'social metaphysics' -- "it was her new theorizing in psychology."

Valliant truncated the quote from PAR like this: "Base[d] on this one example, Mrs Branden would have us believe that psychology was a weapon which Rand used "as an Inquisitor might use fire and the rack."

What is funny, in a sad way, is his 'correction' of a presumed mistake. Of course the Blumenthals broke with Rand. My comment as written was, "I must point out in advance that I don't have any opinion one way or the other on the justification for the Blumenthals' departure as Rand's friends."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! I hope you forgive me for referring to you earlier as Or Worse, Ellen Stuttle.

I find the Or Worsing entertaining, nothing to "forgive." A sort of special mark of distinction to be called "or worse" than the "ugly trolls" by JV.

I am beginning to note a few dropped stitches and hurried patching in his quilt of denunciation of Thebrandens.

A few? ;-) We better be glad we don't depend for warmth on quilts made by him.

E-

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] from Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature:
No one who is educated in these matters and is endowed with the ability to think critically can ever regard Objectivism as anything other than a mistake. (p. 367)

[....] That is beyond rhetoric. That is a complete misidentification to declare victory worthy of a James Valliant.

It's a type of argument from intimidation which is pretty common among the intelligentsia -- "No one educated, or sophisticated, or sensitive, or literate, or discerning, or...could possibly think (or not think) X." It's also a common argument type among Objectivists in the form "No one honest could fail to think (or could agree with or approve of) X."

Greg uses "No one who knows anything could disagree with me" style arguments from intimidation often. I'm so far removed from being swayed by such arguments, I instead find them immediate turn-offs and warnings to watch with extra caution any line of reasoning in which they're employed.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not clear about what you mean about not being right historically.

You had written:

Rand started out going into philosophy in order to project the ideal man.

I'm just pointing out that she started keeping some specifically philosophic journals as far back as 1934. She didn't begin philosophizing for the sake of her novels. She had to carefully work out the details of her views when writing Atlas but she'd already been doing philosophy well before then and not simply for a fiction-writing goal; instead, for the sake of interest in philosophic questions. She'd always had an interest in philosophic questions since she was quite young. She talks about this interest from the time of her early years in the tapes Barbara recorded.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I agree with this last post.

It would be funny if people had mental on-off switches on core values and basic epistemological processes. But thinking this is exactly the problem you find with both Rand's critics and her defenders. They claim she had on-off switches.

For instance with Nyquist, he doesn't allow for the fact that Rand could have been trying to come up with an ideal man AND be interested in philosophy at the same time, being that each interest came more into prominence depending on the phase of her life—and that these slowly came together over time in a form of integration. Oh no. That could never be. She either walked or chewed gum, she couldn't do both.

I do admit that this on-off position is strange coming from Nyquist because part his core contention about human nature is that it is varied. But, of course, with Rand it isn't. She couldn't have had the same characteristics as other humans when it comes to her intellectual interests. That doesn't fit his theory of her. ON. Click. OFF. Click.

As to boneheads like Valliant, to him her sense of detachment was so strong that she was extremely gullible—at least gullible enough to share a man's bed as her lover for well over a decade and dedicate Atlas Shrugged to him even though he was a veritable monster—yet be endowed with superhuman psychological acumen in such abundance that... well... you fill in the blank. (Just imagine superhuman good stuff and being able to penetrate to the soul of dirty rotten rats like no one who ever lived or will live. :) ) You know yourself that there is a plethora of issues like this with Valliant. ON. Click. OFF. Click.

I wonder these guys think this stuff about Rand because they have on-off switches in their own heads.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has the CD of the question period were Ayn Rand denounced homosexuality you will note in the Mayhew book the phase "It's disgusting." is gone.

Yes, and there is no excuse for this. If anyone objects that her expressions of disgust about homosexuality were not part of Objectivism, so what? Mayhew himself emphasizes that the material in Ayn Rand Answers is not part of Objectivism. It was her answers to questions from audience members.

Removing relevant, significant material from this historical record is blatant sanitizing, and for what purpose? Trying to make Rand look less intolerant to newcomers. If Rand later changed her mind and said so, on or off the record, both of her expressions of opinion ought to be on the record, if for no other reason than to illustrate an evolution in her thinking, especially her evaluations, about homosexuality.

George Orwell is rolling over in his grave. Perhaps Ayn Rand is, too.

REB

Roger; We are complete agreement. Perhaps the title should be "The Expurgated Ayn Rand Answerers Questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has the CD of the question period were Ayn Rand denounced homosexuality you will note in the Mayhew book the phase "It's disgusting." is gone.

Chris G,

In fact, Robert Mayhew chose not to quote the answer with "immoral" and "disgusting" at all. That one came from the Q&A after Ayn Rand's 1971 Ford Hall Forum speech.

He went (on p. 18 of Ayn Rand Answers) with a less harshly worded answer from her 1968 appearance at Ford Hall Forum.

Robert C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over at SOLO, Valliant has claimed that Hospers said his remarks at the meeting were "sarcastic."

Let me quote from my critique of PARC, part I:

"Professor John Hospers, according to the Brandens, was taken to task for certain 'sarcastic' and 'professorial' criticisms of Rand in an academic setting, although, once again, neither of the Brandens chooses to relate any of the specifics." (PARC, p. 71.) Valliant drops a footnote and references both PAR and Judgment Day. Nathaniel Branden says Hospers "challenge[d] her viewpoint with the kind of gentle sarcasm professors take for granted and Ayn found appalling." Barbara Branden does not use similar words to describe Hospers' comments. Valliant should not present the two accounts as if they were one.

This is what Hospers said in the 1990 Liberty Magazine memoir:

And so it was that on the last Friday night of October 1962, she gave her newly-written paper "Art and Sense of Life" (now included in The Romantic Manifesto). In general I agreed with it; but a commentator cannot simply say "That was a fine paper" and then sit down. He must say things, if not openly critical, at least challengingly exegetical. I did this--I spoke from brief notes and have only a limited recollection of the points I made. (Perhaps I repressed it because of what happened shortly thereafter.) I was trying to bring out certain implications of her talk. I did not intend to be nasty. My fellow professors at the conference thought I had been very gentle with her. But when Ayn responded in great anger, I could see that she thought I had betrayed her. She lashed out savagely, something I had seen her do before but never with me as the target. Her savagery sowed the seeds of her own destruction with that audience.

In PARC, Valliant attributed what Nathaniel Branden said to Barbara (and even then he doesn't get the quote right). Now he attributes what Nathaniel said to Dr. Hospers.

Who has the "reading problem"?

-Neil

___

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me quote from my critique of PARC, part I:

This is what Hospers said in the 1990 Liberty Magazine memoir:

And so it was that on the last Friday night of October 1962, she gave her newly-written paper "Art and Sense of Life" (now included in The Romantic Manifesto). In general I agreed with it; but a commentator cannot simply say "That was a fine paper" and then sit down. He must say things, if not openly critical, at least challengingly exegetical. I did this--I spoke from brief notes and have only a limited recollection of the points I made. (Perhaps I repressed it because of what happened shortly thereafter.) I was trying to bring out certain implications of her talk. I did not intend to be nasty. My fellow professors at the conference thought I had been very gentle with her. But when Ayn responded in great anger, I could see that she thought I had betrayed her. She lashed out savagely, something I had seen her do before but never with me as the target. Her savagery sowed the seeds of her own destruction with that audience.

My closer reading and concordance checking with the Mullah Rand chapter/thread is revealing some sloppy quotation. In this instance, check the underlined excerpt above against what Valliant puts forward as Hospers' words:

In a 1990 interview, Hospers said that he was merely being "challengingly exegetical if not openly critical of Rand," but he was still no more obliging than the Brandens had been about the content of that challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and William,

Hey, don't leave me out. I mentioned this mistake before (at post 446). Do you guys have a "reading problem"?

-NEIL

____

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

Sorry. That's the problem when there are so many errors and so much dishonesty like in PARC. It's hard to remember them all.

When one instance is focused, like what happened here, your whole attention goes to it instead of seeing a whole pile. It stands out.

But, believe me, you have been devastating against the lies and lockstep Valliant has tried to propagate in Rand's name.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Just kidding.

In point of fact, in the quote from Dr. Hospers, he uses "at least," which implies that he did not say anything "openly critical" of either Rand or her ideas.

-NP

___

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now