N. BRANDEN'S COMMENTARY ON RAND'S CRITICS


Recommended Posts

Subject: How to Get People to Take You Seriously

> Wagner's case is an instructive parallel for Rand...people tend to differentiate between Wagner the musician and Wagner the person. [Jeffrey]

There are a number of crucial differences. One simply has to listen to the music of a composer and what one thinks of the person won't dissuade one from approaching that or appreciating it later. But in the world of ideas, it can be different. If one's personal life is viewed negatively and one is an advocate of how to live one's life, that is rather directly relevant. And it rubs off. Moreover, if someone is challenging the ideas of thousands of years, your own comfortable ideas, there is already an uphill climb and a tendency to hostility, disbelief, to I-don't-want-to-hear-it up front and so anything negative about the person, any implication that the person has poor thinking, poor living, poor judgment up front is much more likely to keep you away from that person.

Plus I was (also) talking about her followers, who focus on trivia, backbiting, and gossip. That tars her as well by implication. There are lots of people to read. If you hear that something (Darwinism, Scientology, Objectivism, Quantum Mechanics, Vegetarianism) is a cult, you are likely to stay away. If you find scientology followers or vegetarians tending to condemn each other as dishonest, repeatedly attack each others books, argue fiercely whether their dear leader's -wife- was an alcoholic, how likely are you to think the ideas themselves are worth exploring?

And, lest someone say "Okay, Phil, I'll give you examples from the worlds of ideas, not music - Hemingway, Sartre, Kierkegaard, other major philosophers - they are taken seriously and people are not dissuaded from studying them, despite any personal unsavoriness." . . .

My answer is first that those are required reading in h.s. and college courses, so they will be explored anyway. And more important, unlike Rand, the culture says: go read them. They have "good press", Nobel or Pulitzer prizes, are lionized as deep thinkers and profound writers that any educated person -must- read. They are not viewed as challenging all of one's ideas and therefore probably a nut. Or at minimum, on the face of it, highly implausible. And creating cartoon characters to boot.

Here is the principle regarding the spread of ideas and getting a 'reputation': If you are on the outside peeking in, you need all the positives you can get. You definitely don't need mud, questions about your judgment and that of your quarreling followers clinging to your boots whenever your name comes up. Character assassination is very effective. Do people want to read the collected speeches of Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney? No one ever has time to read everything. That it might be controversial in a world full of cranks and sloppy thinkers is -definitely- is not enough to intrigue thoughtful readers who have lots of other potentially deep thinkers to read that they think they "should" learn more about.

And please don't be so illogical as to tell me "Rand is beginning to get more widely read, so that proves you wrong, Phil, so we don't have to consider your arguments".

Imagine how much more widely read and respected she would be and actually changing the culture into being Objectivist if the smear and discrediting job done by outsiders ...and by her own followers on themselves, who look like rednecked, shrieking, petty clowns and fools... were not so widely believed.

(Marketing and Public Perceptions 101.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Subject: How to Get People to Take You Seriously

> Wagner's case is an instructive parallel for Rand...people tend to differentiate between Wagner the musician and Wagner the person. [Jeffrey]

There are a number of crucial differences. One simply has to listen to the music of a composer and what one thinks of the person won't dissuade one from approaching that or appreciating it later. But in the world of ideas, it can be different. If one's personal life is viewed negatively and one is an advocate of how to live one's life, that is rather directly relevant. And it rubs off. Moreover, if someone is challenging the ideas of thousands of years, your own comfortable ideas, there is already an uphill climb and a tendency to hostility, disbelief, to I-don't-want-to-hear-it up front and so anything negative about the person, any implication that the person has poor thinking, poor living, poor judgment up front is much more likely to keep you away from that person.

Plus I was (also) talking about her followers, who focus on trivia, backbiting, and gossip. That tars her as well by implication. There are lots of people to read. If you hear that something (Darwinism, Scientology, Objectivism, Quantum Mechanics, Vegetarianism) is a cult, you are likely to stay away. If you find scientology followers or vegetarians tending to condemn each other as dishonest, repeatedly attack each others books, argue fiercely whether their dear leader's -wife- was an alcoholic, how likely are you to think the ideas themselves are worth exploring?

And, lest someone say "Okay, Phil, I'll give you examples from the worlds of ideas, not music - Hemingway, Sartre, Kierkegaard, other major philosophers - they are taken seriously and people are not dissuaded from studying them, despite any personal unsavoriness." . . .

My answer is first that those are required reading in h.s. and college courses, so they will be explored anyway. And more important, unlike Rand, the culture says: go read them. They have "good press", Nobel or Pulitzer prizes, are lionized as deep thinkers and profound writers that any educated person -must- read. They are not viewed as challenging all of one's ideas and therefore probably a nut. Or at minimum, on the face of it, highly implausible. And creating cartoon characters to boot.

Here is the principle regarding the spread of ideas and getting a 'reputation': If you are on the outside peeking in, you need all the positives you can get. You definitely don't need mud, questions about your judgment and that of your quarreling followers clinging to your boots whenever your name comes up. Character assassination is very effective. Do people want to read the collected speeches of Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney? No one ever has time to read everything. That it might be controversial in a world full of cranks and sloppy thinkers is -definitely- is not enough to intrigue thoughtful readers who have lots of other potentially deep thinkers to read that they think they "should" learn more about.

And please don't be so illogical as to tell me "Rand is beginning to get more widely read, so that proves you wrong, Phil, so we don't have to consider your arguments".

Imagine how much more widely read and respected she would be and actually changing the culture into being Objectivist if the smear and discrediting job done by outsiders ...and by her own followers on themselves, who look like rednecked, shrieking, petty clowns and fools... were not so widely believed.

(Marketing and Public Perceptions 101.)

One small correction for this precisely written discourse: in the penultimate paragraph, strike the word "arguments" and insert the word "assertions."

Thank you,

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray, perhaps you're missing some cultural humor that may be more familiar to Americans than Europeans:

It's a stereotypical habit of Jews (indeed, enough of a habit that it's Jews who make the most jokes about it) to answer a question with a question.

Peter O'Murphy asked his neighbor, Fievush Berkowitz, one day:

"Why do you Jews always answer a question with another question?"

Answered Berkowitz: "You're asking me? How should I know?"

Jeffrey S.

No, I wasn't missing the reference to Jewish wit and self-ironic jokes. It is well-known in Europe too.

Good one above btw. :D

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: How to Get People to Take You Seriously

> Wagner's case is an instructive parallel for Rand...people tend to differentiate between Wagner the musician and Wagner the person. [Jeffrey]

There are a number of crucial differences. One simply has to listen to the music of a composer and what one thinks of the person won't dissuade one from approaching that or appreciating it later. But in the world of ideas, it can be different. If one's personal life is viewed negatively and one is an advocate of how to live one's life, that is rather directly relevant. And it rubs off. Moreover, if someone is challenging the ideas of thousands of years, your own comfortable ideas, there is already an uphill climb and a tendency to hostility, disbelief, to I-don't-want-to-hear-it up front and so anything negative about the person, any implication that the person has poor thinking, poor living, poor judgment up front is much more likely to keep you away from that person.

Plus I was (also) talking about her followers, who focus on trivia, backbiting, and gossip. That tars her as well by implication. There are lots of people to read. If you hear that something (Darwinism, Scientology, Objectivism, Quantum Mechanics, Vegetarianism) is a cult, you are likely to stay away. If you find scientology followers or vegetarians tending to condemn each other as dishonest, repeatedly attack each others books, argue fiercely whether their dear leader's -wife- was an alcoholic, how likely are you to think the ideas themselves are worth exploring?

And, lest someone say "Okay, Phil, I'll give you examples from the worlds of ideas, not music - Hemingway, Sartre, Kierkegaard, other major philosophers - they are taken seriously and people are not dissuaded from studying them, despite any personal unsavoriness." . . .

My answer is first that those are required reading in h.s. and college courses, so they will be explored anyway. And more important, unlike Rand, the culture says: go read them. They have "good press", Nobel or Pulitzer prizes, are lionized as deep thinkers and profound writers that any educated person -must- read. They are not viewed as challenging all of one's ideas and therefore probably a nut. Or at minimum, on the face of it, highly implausible. And creating cartoon characters to boot.

Here is the principle regarding the spread of ideas and getting a 'reputation': If you are on the outside peeking in, you need all the positives you can get. You definitely don't need mud, questions about your judgment and that of your quarreling followers clinging to your boots whenever your name comes up. Character assassination is very effective. Do people want to read the collected speeches of Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney? No one ever has time to read everything. That it might be controversial in a world full of cranks and sloppy thinkers is -definitely- is not enough to intrigue thoughtful readers who have lots of other potentially deep thinkers to read that they think they "should" learn more about.

And please don't be so illogical as to tell me "Rand is beginning to get more widely read, so that proves you wrong, Phil, so we don't have to consider your arguments".

Imagine how much more widely read and respected she would be and actually changing the culture into being Objectivist if the smear and discrediting job done by outsiders ...and by her own followers on themselves, who look like rednecked, shrieking, petty clowns and fools... were not so widely believed.

(Marketing and Public Perceptions 101.)

One small correction for this precisely written discourse: in the penultimate paragraph, strike the word "arguments" and insert the word "assertions."

Thank you,

JR

Phil does nor consider that the Objectivist philosophy itself--a la Ayn Rand--might have built in obstructions to general cultural acceptance and that these are objective deficiencies if not outright mistakes. He thinks it's off the shelf, ready to go, but that the stock clerks don't know how to pick it up and carry it to the front to hoi polloi as they argue amongst themselves.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, your point is good but your example is bad. From the ban on performing Wagner in Israel, to the classic Woody Allen joke "I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland", Wagner's bad behavior haunts his reputation.

Dennis,

I don't agree. These things you mentioned don't affect Wagner's musical impact in the world one whit. Certainly his acrimonious dispute with Hanslick does not.

As to the Israel thing, according to an article in The Jewish Virtual Library: The Controversy Over Richard Wagner by Lili Eylon, the ban in Israel is not official and Wagner has been performed in Israel many times. There is a problem that flares up, but the root is not even Wagner's antisemitism. On discussing the arguments "about playing Wagner in Israel," here is what she wrote:

... nor is the argument about how deep-seated was his antisemitism really relevant. . . .

...there is no doubt that he was a powerful symbol in the Nazi era, and his music held a singular importance in the Nazi psyche. Thus, for Jewish survivors of the Nazi horrors, Wagner's music represents a vivid reminder of that regime.

This has nothing to do with what happend during his life.

Also, Jewish conductors constanly perform Wagner the world over, including Israeli conductors. Google it and you will see one after the other.

So what's the impact on his reputation? That a few people talk bad about him while the entire world plays his music?

I don't want to say, "You are wrong and I am right," but...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the world of ideas, it can be different. If one's personal life is viewed negatively and one is an advocate of how to live one's life, that is rather directly relevant. And it rubs off.

Phil,

You mean Muhammad's misbehavior is a reason Muhammad's ideas on "how to live one's life" do not influence people? Like say the current 1.5 billion Muslims?

Hmmmmm...

Try Googling the word "controversy" with the name of several of mankind's most cherished "idea folks" who deal with how human beings should live and see what you come up with. It certainly doesn't support your contention here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i don't agree. These things you mentioned don't affect Wagner's musical impact in the world one whit. Certainly his acrimonious dispute with Hanslick does not.

Now here I must differ. Wagner’s mission was to create Gesamtkunstwerk, “Total Artwork”, a perfect marriage of drama, poetry, music, and visual arts. He wrote the texts, and you have to count those too. 125 years after his death his work is derided as coded anti-Semitism, meaning the ideas he was trying to get across are still misrepresented. Nowadays his work gets wildly reinterpreted, it’s a joke if you see the productions in Europe. His real cultural messages get lost, and his own foul mouth/pen, though misappropriated by Nazis, deserves plenty of blame.

Where I live, South Florida, there are lots of Jews, a higher percentage than most places in the US. And our opera company has produced 2 Dutchmans and 1 Walkure in 60-70 years. That’s it, no other Wagner productions. Mozart, Verdi, Puccini (a actual fascist toadie), are done every year. In Israel, when Barenboim tried to do an unprogrammed Wagner encore, people shouted and some got up and showed off their concentration camp tattoos (wait, that might have been a Mehta concert). I know you singled out his pissing contest with Hanslick, but even that contained all the elements of Wagner at his worst, including his playing the Jew-card.

So, as I said before, bad example.

Hojotoho! Hojotoho! Heiaha! icon_war.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of fascinating comments here about the issue of comparing an author's character to what that person actually advocates in his writings.

I think we need to narrow this down to those that advocate an ideology or philosophy of life. Composers, artists, etc. are cut a lot of slack on these things (as Wagner, van Gogh, Dali, Bernstein, etc. illustrate).

Religious figures tend to fare better because their followers are dogmatic and tend to deny, dismiss, ignore conflicts between their leaders' teachings and their personal behavior (i.e. Mohammad, innumerable Christian sect and cult leaders, evangelists, etc.). In the case of Christians, they usually respond with something like, "Well, we're all sinners. We all fall short in the eyes of God." Of course, some of these followers are so dedicated to their belief systems that they will resort to violence to shut-up their critics.

A better comparison for Rand would be the founders of other ideological systems (e.g., Saint Simon, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx). All three of these displayed behavior that was inconsistent with what they were advocating.

I don't see where Marx's bad behavior towards others, including his wife and children, materially damaged the impact of the ideas that he was advocating. And even the destruction of states that claim to have been founded on his ideas has not resulted in the diminution of his attraction to the intellectuals or academics in America and Europe. They typically respond with , "Oh, those weren't real Marxists! They just claimed to be!" As far as I can see, Marxism is very much alive and well.

Auguste Comte has often been cited as a severely disturbed figure who stole a lot of his ideas for Positivism from his former leader, Saint-Simon, founded an ideology, and them attempted to transform it into a secularized "religion of humanity" (his term). Actually, there are some startling parallels in the relationship and subsequent "break" between Saint-Simon and Comte; and that of Rand and Branden. Too close for comfort, in my book. But I won't get into that, right now).

Comte's positivist ideology may not be alive in a form that Comte would recognize, but aspects of his system have been absorbed into the culture and our political system (and not just altruism, see The Positivist Republic: Auguste Comte and the Reconstruction of American Liberalism, 1865-1920, by Gillis J. Harp. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995) for an examination of Comtean influence in the development of "Progressivism.

Read it and weep.

In the cases of Marx, Saint-Simon, and Comte, their ideas are now in forms that their founders would not recognize. And nobody cares about their crazy, dissolute, or erratic personal life.

Although it may make the ARIans squirm to contemplate this, we would indeed be fortunate if Rand's ideas "suffer" such a fate.

Another, less attractive possibility, is for Rand's philosophy going down the course that befell that of another system builder (and, in this case, a defender of individualism and laissez-faire), Herbert Spencer, with his massive multi-volume "The Synthetic Philosophy:" from initial overwhelming popularity to almost total neglect and obscurity in about 50 years. Once a monument, now a tombstone.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

I don't feel like looking it up, but I bet there are oodles of monkeyshines among the Founding Fathers.

They still came up with the greatest social structure mankind had ever witnessed to that point. And the people who fight for that vision today, even common people in Tea Parties, don't even care about the monkeyshines.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I live, South Florida, there are lots of Jews, a higher percentage than most places in the US.

Dennis,

You ought to see where I live (Evanston, IL), especially next door in Skokie.

Michael

South Florida has one of the largest Jewish populations in the country (South Florida meaning the three county metroplex of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade). Where do you think all those Jews from Evanston go when they retire?

The impact of having a high Jewish population is somewhat blunted by the fact that we have a high population of people from everywhere else: about the only Latin American/Caribbean country that does have some sort of significant presence here is Mexico. (And some of those folks are Jews: enough to justify a Cuban synagogue in Miami Beach and Hispanic rabbis hired on as auxiliaries in various synagogues in the area. There's a lot of Russians who live here; a sizeable percentage of them is Jewish, as well.)

BTW, my cousin is one of your neighbors (Wilmette, after spells in Evanston and Skokie).

And as far as the FGO goes--what ND said is more of an indication of the general unambitiousness of Florida Grand Opera than any distaste for Wagner. This area managed to implode a quality orchestra that might well have developed into a good second tier orchestra several years ago, when the economy was booming, and then lost a first rate concert series last year: the FGO is essentially just trying to survive a bad economy, at the moment.

Jeffrey Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the world of ideas, it can be different. If one's personal life is viewed negatively and one is an advocate of how to live one's life, that is rather directly relevant. And it rubs off.

Phil,

You mean Muhammad's misbehavior is a reason Muhammad's ideas on "how to live one's life" do not influence people? Like say the current 1.5 billion Muslims?

Hmmmmm...

Try Googling the word "controversy" with the name of several of mankind's most cherished "idea folks" who deal with how human beings should live and see what you come up with. It certainly doesn't support your contention here.

Michael

In this respect I am reminded of the saying that is often used by parents with their children; "Do as I say and not as I do". In the case of child rearing I think it is very true that teaching by example is much more effective than saying one thing and behaving another way. However, if one is presented with the formulations in another setting, like in a curriculum for example, without knowledge of the personal lives of the authors, then one is much more likely to consider them on their own merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can agree to disagree, rather than get into an extended debate on Wagner. However another point I’d like to make is that Branden didn’t lower the tenor of the debate with his comment, he was standing above the drivel of his adversaries. Wagner didn’t do that, not with Hanslick or with any of his enemies generally. He fought dirty, and he would throw the first sucker punch and groin kick. Also, Wagner had pretensions of being much more than a musician, he wanted to change the world. He wanted to be remembered as a philosopher, and even had Nietzsche to egg him on for a while. His bad behaviour has worked against that goal. Of course there’s also the fact that what he wrote (qua philosopher) is now regarded as junk (an essay against Vivisection, and some other things). So we could go on and on about this, he’s just a bad example (broken record syndrome kicking in).

the only Latin American/Caribbean country that does have some sort of significant presence here is Mexico.

I think you meant “doesn’t have”; Cubans, Columbians, Nicaraguans, Haitians, Jamaicans, and some others have signifigant presence, even their own neighborhoods, Mexicans are the big nationality that don’t, not that I’m aware of.

And as far as the FGO goes--what ND said is more of an indication of the general unambitiousness of Florida Grand Opera than any distaste for Wagner.

I’ve seen FGO put on a world class Aida, and a very respectable Boris Godunov. Expensive and ambitious works to put on. 3 Wagner productions in 60-70 years is certainly out of proportion, and only one of those qualified as a major production. I hasten to add that I don’t think there’s a Jewish cabal working to prevent Wagner performances here, but I do think the powers that be want to avoid controversy. This will sound utterly insane to anyone who doesn’t live here, but you must know why there’s NEVER been a production of Fidelio here. strokebeard.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thMDOok-Jcs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> So [branden] was (and still is, as the reviews of Heller and Burns have shown) merely replying in kind. I still can't see Howard Roark doing this, though. [Reidy]

Neither can I. One doesn't lower oneself to the level of one's worst critics no matter how prevalent they are for a time and no matter how angry or disgusted they make you.

And if one does, when the time comes for a higher and better type of scholars or critics or ordinary people to research you, you have the tar baby stuck all over you and they may skip quickly past, thinking that you are just another bottom feeder substituting slander for substance.

RE: "I still can't see Roark doing this, though."

Someone else who (unfortunately) could not (or would not) follow Roark's method of responding to a campaign of vilification, was the author herself. She had her hero Roark exemplify the proper response in this exchange with his nemesis, Ellsworth Toohey:

Toohey: (after informing Roark that he is the man responsible for leading the campaign that destroyed his career) Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you care to use.

Roark: But, I don't think of you.

This exchange is also quoted at the end of Branden's lecture on "The Nature of Evil," in The Basic Principles of Objectivism ( and in the forthcoming print version of BPO, The Vision of Ayn Rand).

Another example that it is one thing to advocate to others a certain response against evil, but it is much more difficult to "practice what one preaches."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I bet there are oodles of monkeyshines among the Founding Fathers...the people who fight for that vision today...don't even care about the monkeyshines. [MSK]

If they even happened, they are not aware of them, as you are not. So how can you say they don't even care about things they are not aware of?

> A better comparison for Rand would be the founders of other ideological systems [Jerry]

Or other literary figures.

> Marx, Saint-Simon, and Comte [vs.] a defender of individualism and laissez-faire..Herbert Spencer [who has achieved] almost total neglect and obscurity [Jerry]

This is not an argument against my points, but actually supports them: it's the advocates of the unpopular views who suffer from being tarred. Not the ones who are 'riding the wave' or cashing in or elaborating on views already widespread and to which people are sympathetic: "[Marx and related altruists and collectivists] those are required reading in h.s. and college courses, so they will be explored anyway" [post #26]. Plus this: "They have "good press", Nobel or Pulitzer prizes, are lionized as deep thinkers and profound writers that any educated person -must- read. They are not viewed as challenging all of one's ideas and therefore probably a nut." And my other point re Spencer and other individualist or laissez-faire thinkers: "If someone is challenging the ideas of thousands of years, your own comfortable ideas, there is already an uphill climb and a tendency to hostility, disbelief, to I-don't-want-to-hear-it up front."

(I already made both these points and more, so I wonder if my arguments were understood or 'skimmed'.) Also this: "If one's personal life is viewed negatively and one is an advocate of how to live one's life, that is rather directly relevant." Appended to this: "any implication that the person has poor thinking, poor living, poor judgment up front is much more likely to keep you away from that person."

And this: "If you hear that something..is a cult, you are likely to stay away. If [the followers tend] to condemn each other as dishonest, repeatedly attack each others books, argue fiercely whether their dear leader's -wife- was an alcoholic, how likely are you to think the ideas themselves are worth exploring?" Are followers of Marx, Saint-Simon, Comte widely known in public perception for this kind of behavior, or more for gentlemanly debates in academic journals?

And finally, this: "If you are on the outside peeking in, you need all the positives you can get. You definitely don't need mud, questions about your judgment and that of your quarreling followers clinging to your boots whenever your name comes up. Character assassination is very effective. Do people want to read the collected speeches of Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney? No one ever has time to read everything. That it might be controversial in a world full of cranks and sloppy thinkers is -definitely- not enough to intrigue thoughtful readers who have lots of other potentially deep thinkers to read that they think they "should" learn more about."

ICBIHTMAPOT

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people want to read the collected speeches of Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney?

Phil,

This is the second time you have asked this and it deserves a response. It's not a good question. These are very current politicians and nobody reads the collected speeches of current politicians.

Period.

Do you anybody who wants to read the collected speeches of Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden? Or how about one who is not even so current, Ted Kennedy?

Or how about Barack Obama? George Bush? Bill Clinton? Bush's father has a book, and that's where interest really starts.

Collected speeches as interest are for historical figures of the medium-to-distant past.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people want to read the collected speeches of Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney?

Phil,

This is the second time you have asked this and it deserves a response. It's not a good question. These are very current politicians and nobody reads the collected speeches of current politicians.

Period.

Do you anybody who wants to read the collected speeches of Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden? Or how about one who is not even so current, Ted Kennedy?

Or how about Barack Obama? George Bush? Bill Clinton? Bush's father has a book, and that's where interest really starts.

Collected speeches as interest are for historical figures of the medium-to-distant past.

Michael

I've read the latest by these two (Palin and Cheney) and found them good, interesting or both.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil--> Do people want to read the collected speeches of Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney?

MSK--> It's not a good question. These are very current politicians and nobody reads the collected speeches of current politicians.

Michael, you're nitpicking again.

Even if my choice of the two examples of Cheney and Palin were not good ones, it seems like you are looking through an entire post for a single statement which is not essential to my argument to find fault with. And then ignoring any good points I make or my central points.

,,,,,,,

Just some friendly advice: I wish you were able to accept criticism as well as dish it out. You seem to do this sort of nitpicking often - and it drives away or angers people just as much as outright personal attack. Not just me, but Ted, Ellen, Jim, Roger, and many others.

I wish you'd try harder not to do this sort of thing. It makes the person who made a good post feel invisible and is discouraging. No one will make an infallible post and we all hope people are not looking constantly to 'pounce' on any flaw or any choice of example.

I know you've said you are discouraged by some tendencies you see in the Objectivist movement. Have you considered starting to clean up your own skills first? :rolleyes:

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

I disagree with your premises. And I disagree with the characterization of niticking. It is not nitpicking to say that I disagree with a half-baked example to promote things I disagree with.

Here are a few of my premises where I believe we disagree:

1. Objectivism is not a way to save the world and I can't think of a single Objectivist (including Rand) who fits the role of savior. It is merely a body of ideas. Good ideas, but nothing more.

2. In my life, the world is a beautiful place and is not going to hell in a handbasket. (As a corollary, I believe the world was a beautiful place before Rand was born, and would be a beautiful place if she had never existed.)

3. The fundamentals of Objectivism are absolutely easy to learn, so easy learning them can get boring.

4. People who criticize others should not constantly exibit the same defects they bash.

5. The evil of bullying trumps the evil of altruism. (As a corollary, standing up to a bully is not the equivalent of being a bully or being naughty.)

6. Rand's personal shortcomings have no impact on the acceptance of her ideas—people are going to buy Rand's works and be influenced by her ideas even if she were found to have been an axe-murderer in life.

7. People who play the Love-Rand/Hate-Rand game are profoundly insecure. (See my 2006 essay The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth for a vastly different reality-based view regarding her impact on the world than the Love/Hate players present.)

I could go on for a few more, but that will do for starters. These are not nits. These are premises that point to a profoundly different world-view, to one that is based on independent thinking instead following someone.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice, Michael.

This is one of your best posts that I recall.

It is essentialized. It is not nitpicky. It is clearly stated, for the most part. Some of your seven points are very true and some are quite false. But stating them well and fairly is highly important.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of your seven points are very true and some are quite false.

Try stating 1,2,5,6 or 7 at a gathering of ARIans, and you’ll be cast out on your ear, and then they’ll release the hounds.

angry_dog.gif

And be careful how you concretize 4, it doesn't apply to any of them. 3 just means you haven't listened to enough Peikoff tapes. You must do a comprehensive comparison between the formulations in the 1976 course and OPAR to grok the fullness. Crap, I just mixed up authors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the bulldog. Thanks, ND.

I'm going to use it as my avatar...shamelessly stealing it from you.

(I spent four years in college being brainwashed to hate Yalies, but their bulldog is a lot more civilized than this snarling, world-hating, slavering burgundy monster.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the bulldog. Thanks, ND.

I'm going to use it as my avatar...shamelessly stealing it from you.

(I spent four years in college being brainwashed to hate Yalies, but their bulldog is a lot more civilized than this snarling, world-hating, slavering burgundy monster.)

It kind of looks like the USMC bulldog.

Jeff S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the bulldog. Thanks, ND.

I'm going to use it as my avatar...shamelessly stealing it from you.

(I spent four years in college being brainwashed to hate Yalies, but their bulldog is a lot more civilized than this snarling, world-hating, slavering burgundy monster.)

It kind of looks like the USMC bulldog.

Jeff S.

gollum.jpg Filthy, tricksy Hobbits! They stole it from us!

Binny actually came from here:

http://www.gifs.net/gif/index.php3?n=image.php3&image_id=1697&image_name=Angry_dog

I sought him out yesterday because I wanted to use the PG Wodehouse line "will cast out on ear and set dogs on". The line's in one of the Jeeves books, part of a telegram so I had to tinker with it. I think it’s going to get annoying as an Avatar, BTW.

It is merely a body of ideas. Good ideas, but nothing more.

This seemingly conflicts with the Objectivist view of the role of ideas in history. That they are the prime driver. Or maybe its just the way you phrased it: "merely" and "nothing more". think.gif

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