NATIONAL REVIEW NEW HIT PIECE ON RAND


Recommended Posts

You didn't really think Buckley's NR had missed the chance to join the pile-up on Ayn Rand, did you?

The current issue, dated August 30, has just hit the shelves at Borders. The famous Rand-stamp portrait is on the cover. Title: Ayn Rand Reconsidered: A Greatness Stunted By Hate." by Jason Steorts. The inside title for the hit piece is "The Greatly, Ghastly Ayn Rand."

Review to follow. But see for yourself: www.nationalreview.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's available if you want to pay $21.95.

Who the hell is John David Stutts anyway?

I'll wait for the movie.

I think you mean, Jason Steorts. He is "Managing Editor" of National Review magazine and its subscription-only online twin, National Review Digital (neither are identical in content or staff with their website, "National Review Online)." I bought the print copy at Borders today.

I am going to post a summary of their argument which uses the train wreck as the prop to base their claim of "hate," and then fumbles the argument. No discussion, or even mention, of the two recently published biographies, and no discussion at all of the philosophy of Objectivism (the authors states he stopped reading after the train wreck account, so he doesn't touch at all on Galt's Speech or most of the other speeches (with the exception of a very brief mention of a few lines from d'Anconia's remarks at Lillian Rearden's party). It is a very curious and convoluted article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's available if you want to pay $21.95.

Who the hell is John David Stutts anyway?

I'll wait for the movie.

I think you mean, Jason Steorts. He is "Managing Editor" of National Review magazine and its subscription-only online twin, National Review Digital (neither are identical in content or staff with their website, "National Review Online)." I bought the print copy at Borders today.

I am going to post a summary of their argument which uses the train wreck as the prop to base their claim of "hate," and then fumbles the argument. No discussion, or even mention, of the two recently published biographies, and no discussion at all of the philosophy of Objectivism (the authors states he stopped reading after the train wreck account, so he doesn't touch at all on Galt's Speech or most of the other speeches (with the exception of a very brief mention of a few lines from d'Anconia's remarks at Lillian Rearden's party). It is a very curious and convoluted article.

Jason Steort, John David Stutts, what's the difference? They are both hitmen with fifteen minutes of fame.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/john-david-stutts/2421/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh yes... "hate"

Because the worst thing you can possibly do is "hate" something.

I despise that... the idea that "hate" automatically proves you wrong. Because apparently "hate" automatically means you have no argument. Because apparently "hate" is a substance and if you have "hate" inside you, you can't think logically.

The National Review is intellectually bankrupt. Fusionism forced advocates of liberty to concede morality to the conservatives. It chained free market economics to social conservatism. The worst thing that happened to the reputation of free market economics was the equation of free markets with Jesus-fascist, drug-banning, whore-banning, drug-banning, gay-loathing, rock-music-censoring, comic-book-controlling, anti-gambling, Rapture-ready conservatives.

Only people capable of the most venomous hate can be capable of truly loving something. Asking us to not "hate" things requires us to live our lives in complete indifference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh yes... "hate"

Because the worst thing you can possibly do is "hate" something.

I despise that... the idea that "hate" automatically proves you wrong. Because apparently "hate" automatically means you have no argument. Because apparently "hate" is a substance and if you have "hate" inside you, you can't think logically.

The National Review is intellectually bankrupt. Fusionism forced advocates of liberty to concede morality to the conservatives. It chained free market economics to social conservatism. The worst thing that happened to the reputation of free market economics was the equation of free markets with Jesus-fascist, drug-banning, whore-banning, drug-banning, gay-loathing, rock-music-censoring, comic-book-controlling, anti-gambling, Rapture-ready conservatives.

Only people capable of the most venomous hate can be capable of truly loving something. Asking us to not "hate" things requires us to live our lives in complete indifference.

Um, nonsense. Hate is not a virtue. It is surrendering up too much to the object of your hatred. What did Roark say to Toohey? To say that only people who can hate strongly can love strongly makes as much sense as saying that only people who are truly sick can be truly healthy, or that the ability to be very uncomfortable is a precondition of being very comfortable. There are circumstances where hate is appropriate and serves as a proper motivator - the same as with pain. That doesn't make hate a preferable in the stoic sense or something by which it is good to be consumed. Indeed, the National Review's response to Rand is just that, consuming hatred. Why else publish such a shoddy and intellectually dishonest attack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, nonsense. Hate is not a virtue. It is surrendering up too much to the object of your hatred. What did Roark say to Toohey? To say that only people who can hate strongly can love strongly makes as much sense as saying that only people who are truly sick can be truly healthy, or that the ability to be very uncomfortable is a precondition of being very comfortable. There are circumstances where hate is appropriate and serves as a proper motivator - the same as with pain. That doesn't make hate a preferable in the stoic sense or something by which it is good to be consumed. Indeed, the National Review's response to Rand is just that, consuming hatred. Why else publish such a shoddy and intellectually dishonest attack?

You misunderstood my answer (or I was insufficiently clear). Positive feelings are felt towards one's values, negative feelings towards one's disvalues. Love and hate are the extreme ends of the continuum, but the basic principle holds true.

If one has a specific value, one has positive feelings towards that which embodies it and negative feelings towards that which denies it. If someone cannot feel any intense positive feelings at all, they probably can't feel any negative feelings, and hence have no real values. Its like the Jedi code; indifference is key, if you value something you fear loss which drives you to the dark side. Bad example, I know.

I'm not saying hate is good intrinsically. I'm saying someone with a specific and definite set of values will feel both positive and negative feelings (levels of love and hate, one could say) towards that which embodies and negates (respectively) their values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, nonsense. Hate is not a virtue. It is surrendering up too much to the object of your hatred. What did Roark say to Toohey? To say that only people who can hate strongly can love strongly makes as much sense as saying that only people who are truly sick can be truly healthy, or that the ability to be very uncomfortable is a precondition of being very comfortable. There are circumstances where hate is appropriate and serves as a proper motivator - the same as with pain. That doesn't make hate a preferable in the stoic sense or something by which it is good to be consumed. Indeed, the National Review's response to Rand is just that, consuming hatred. Why else publish such a shoddy and intellectually dishonest attack?

You misunderstood my answer (or I was insufficiently clear). Positive feelings are felt towards one's values, negative feelings towards one's disvalues. Love and hate are the extreme ends of the continuum, but the basic principle holds true.

If one has a specific value, one has positive feelings towards that which embodies it and negative feelings towards that which denies it. If someone cannot feel any intense positive feelings at all, they probably can't feel any negative feelings, and hence have no real values. Its like the Jedi code; indifference is key, if you value something you fear loss which drives you to the dark side. Bad example, I know.

I'm not saying hate is good intrinsically. I'm saying someone with a specific and definite set of values will feel both positive and negative feelings (levels of love and hate, one could say) towards that which embodies and negates (respectively) their values.

The analysis is still inaccurate. Hatred is not the opposite or the absence of love. It is an emotion that stands on its own, and which, paradoxically, can be found in combination with love. Both Wynand and Dominique were in love-hate relationships with Roark, for example.

Hatred is the desire to harm a person whom you perceive as intending you harm.

In a small tribal society where your rival for love or wealth or power might murder you in your sleep, hatred serves a motivational purpose.

In a free society where your rights are secured, hatred is about as biologically useful as an inflamed appendix.

Hatred is the characteristic emotion of the feuding society, not the civilized society. Hatred rests on insecurity. Hate is cultivated in places like the Balkans where no person is secure in his person, not Britain, at least while it was a civilized land.

When you find physically secure men cultivating hate it is because they perceive some secret threat. Look then for some lie they are hiding (and some truth they fear will be revealed) whether from others or themselves or both. That is the cancerous nature of hate among civilized men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you find physically secure men cultivating hate it is because they perceive some secret threat. Look then for some lie they are hiding (and some truth they fear will be revealed) whether from others or themselves or both. That is the cancerous nature of hate among civilized men.

What about fear, loathing, low regard, contempt and contumely? Or harsh judgment? Are we supposed to love everyone and sing Kumbayah with them?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words have an exact meaning, Baal: None of those words are the same as hate.

Words have many exact meanings which is part of the problem with words. Loathing and hatred, for example, are very near in meaning in some contexts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatred is the desire to harm a person whom you perceive as intending you harm.

I was not using that definition, and I don't think that the National Review was either. I think the definitions both myself and NR are using are much broader and more general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatred is the desire to harm a person whom you perceive as intending you harm.

I was not using that definition, and I don't think that the National Review was either. I think the definitions both myself and NR are using are much broader and more general.

On the basis that hate is often preceded or accompanied by fear,(or threat, as Ted Keer points out) this NR piece (which I admit I haven't read yet) is encouraging - as I consider all unsubstantiated, irrational attacks on O'ism and Rand.

Something has pricked those intellectuals deeply; the Truth, perhaps?

Anyway, hate can be a useful human emotion, like guilt and fear.

We should not deny or separate ourselves from it, as it is often a force for the good to initiate introspection and reason.

But only when it is identified early, objectified, and re-directed. By which stage the hate has dissolved.

The notion that love/value and hate are on the same continuum (as polar opposites), with one making the other 'possible' (in effect), was my conviction for a while.

Now I don't think so - hatred stands alone, imo. Left untended it is debilitating, self-defeating, and thus, immoral.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that love/value and hate are on the same continuum (as polar opposites), with one making the other 'possible' (in effect), was my conviction for a while.

Now I don't think so - hatred stands alone, imo. Left untended it is debilitating, self-defeating, and thus, immoral.

Tony

Should we not hate what is evil and love what is good?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that love/value and hate are on the same continuum (as polar opposites), with one making the other 'possible' (in effect), was my conviction for a while.

Now I don't think so - hatred stands alone, imo. Left untended it is debilitating, self-defeating, and thus, immoral.

Tony

Should we not hate what is evil and love what is good?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ha! Ba'al, haven't you got an easier question? B)

First and simple answer: yes.

With some additional points:-

1. How often is hating of the psychological type, relating to who,or what, we fear, are threatened by, and just don't understand?

And how much of the principled, philosophical type, relating to evil ideas? (And their adherents.)

2. If sustained hatred is doing me more harm than the object of hatred, can it be rational, and objectively moral? IOW, there must be always a point at which my self-interest is of higher importance than all the evils of the world.

3. To be clear, by NO means am I advocating indifference, appeasement, or non-specific tolerance of evil people and wrong ideas. It's just that I think that they can be opposed without all-consuming hatred. Actually, more effectively so.

Who would you rather have as the Commander of an army defending you? One who coldly but with principle, did what was necessary to defeat the enemy; or one who was driven by rage and hate?

4. On a scale weighting "loving what is good", against "hating what is bad", I personally far prefer the first, for moral as well as practical reasons.

This is a topic that goes deeper the more you look at it.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that love/value and hate are on the same continuum (as polar opposites), with one making the other 'possible' (in effect), was my conviction for a while.

Now I don't think so - hatred stands alone, imo. Left untended it is debilitating, self-defeating, and thus, immoral.

Tony

Should we not hate what is evil and love what is good?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ha! Ba'al, haven't you got an easier question? B)

First and simple answer: yes.

With some additional points:-

1. How often is hating of the psychological type, relating to who,or what, we fear, are threatened by, and just don't understand?

And how much of the principled, philosophical type, relating to evil ideas? (And their adherents.)

2. If sustained hatred is doing me more harm than the object of hatred, can it be rational, and objectively moral? IOW, there must be always a point at which my self-interest is of higher importance than all the evils of the world.

3. To be clear, by NO means am I advocating indifference, appeasement, or non-specific tolerance of evil people and wrong ideas. It's just that I think that they can be opposed without all-consuming hatred. Actually, more effectively so.

Who would you rather have as the Commander of an army defending you? One who coldly but with principle, did what was necessary to defeat the enemy; or one who was driven by rage and hate?

4. On a scale weighting "loving what is good", against "hating what is bad", I personally far prefer the first, for moral as well as practical reasons.

This is a topic that goes deeper the more you look at it.

Tony

I do not think that any emotion, no matter how naturally generated should be allowed to completely negate reason. At some point we must stand back and taste our emotional dishes cold.

What is the old Klingon saying? Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that love/value and hate are on the same continuum (as polar opposites), with one making the other 'possible' (in effect), was my conviction for a while.

Now I don't think so - hatred stands alone, imo. Left untended it is debilitating, self-defeating, and thus, immoral.

Tony

Should we not hate what is evil and love what is good?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ha! Ba'al, haven't you got an easier question? B)

First and simple answer: yes.

With some additional points:-

1. How often is hating of the psychological type, relating to who,or what, we fear, are threatened by, and just don't understand?

And how much of the principled, philosophical type, relating to evil ideas? (And their adherents.)

2. If sustained hatred is doing me more harm than the object of hatred, can it be rational, and objectively moral? IOW, there must be always a point at which my self-interest is of higher importance than all the evils of the world.

3. To be clear, by NO means am I advocating indifference, appeasement, or non-specific tolerance of evil people and wrong ideas. It's just that I think that they can be opposed without all-consuming hatred. Actually, more effectively so.

Who would you rather have as the Commander of an army defending you? One who coldly but with principle, did what was necessary to defeat the enemy; or one who was driven by rage and hate?

4. On a scale weighting "loving what is good", against "hating what is bad", I personally far prefer the first, for moral as well as practical reasons.

This is a topic that goes deeper the more you look at it.

Tony

I do not think that any emotion, no matter how naturally generated should be allowed to completely negate reason. At some point we must stand back and taste our emotional dishes cold.

What is the old Klingon saying? Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh, c'mon. That's no fun!

--Brant

how do you partially negate reason without completely negating it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, hate can be a useful human emotion, like guilt and fear.

Consider that while Newspeak substitutes “double plus ungood” and such for most other terms of disapprobation, hate is retained in the language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feeling hatred at times is part of the human condition.

It is a mistake to try to eradicate it because you can't. It's like trying to eradicate thirst.

The healthiest and most moral thing to do is to keep hatred within a proper balance to the other emotions (which generally means fostering positive emotions more than negative ones, but allowing both expression) and reflecting often over the justice of the hatred one feels when it surges up.

It is very easy for hatred to blind a person to justice since it is a powerful emotion when it kicks in. So it needs a lot of self-reflection. I don't want to use one of Rand's favorite words, "ruthless" because I don't like it. But in this context. I think is it apt to say that hatred needs self-reflection based on "ruthless objectivity" if it is to stay in a healthy and moral balance.

People who try to deny it in all contexts suffer unintended consequences, with guilt and sudden bursts of temporary insanity (or at least some real lowdown nastiness that leaves the person who did it perplexed later) being at the top.

Hatred is an emotional weapon of destruction. It's useful since we need to destroy threats and enemies sometimes, but it can drive a person to destroy too much--even destroy the good within himself--if not tempered with self-reflection, love and reason.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I don't recall if anything was written by N. Branden about this, but it's sensible to think that a strong emotion like hatred is unsettling at best, destructive of peace of mind at worst, and therefore can bring about lowered self-worth.

Objectively, it could be tied to excessive concern with others, and so runs the risk of 'second-handedness.'

Do you consider this valid?

I don't have any doubt that one should consistently and fearlessly condemn and oppose wrong ('evil'), but the amount of sheer hatred seen amongst some otherwise thoughtful people, I find disturbing.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feeling hatred at times is part of the human condition.

It is a mistake to try to eradicate it because you can't. It's like trying to eradicate thirst.

The healthiest and most moral thing to do is to keep hatred within a proper balance to the other emotions (which generally means fostering positive emotions more than negative ones, but allowing both expression) and reflecting often over the justice of the hatred one feels when it surges up.

All good advice.

It is easy to sympathize with the Stoics and the Buddhists and others who have sought to eradicate hatred, but what they are seeking isn't humanly possible, and they haven't reckoned with the costs of pursuing their aim.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of issues regarding "hate" which need to be considered here: 1) the dictionary definition of hate, 2) the cultural definitions of what hate means; and 3)what did the NR editor mean when he uses that term in relation to Rand?

Dictionary definitions: I'm sure many dictionaries vary over their definitions, but here's one from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (not necessarily the best dictionary, but its the one I have, and is probably representative):

hate verb hated, hating, hates. 1. To loathe; detest. 2. To dislike; wish to shun. -intr. To feel hatred. noun. 1. Strong dislike; animosity; hatred. 2. An object of detestation or hatred: a pet hate.

hateful adjective. 1. Inspiring hatred; detestable; despicable. 2. Rare. Feeling or expressing hatred; malevolent.

Synonyms: hateful, detestable, odious, obnoxious, offensive, repellent. These adjectives, closely related and often interchangeable, describe what causes strong dislike or distaste. [The dictionary goes to briefly describe each term, which I will leave out.]

hatred noun. Violent dislike or animosity; abhorrence.

These definitions are similar, but not identical, to some of the current cultural definitions. Leftists and the MSM often tend to describe groups, individuals, or books that oppose their pet policies as "haters," "hateful, or as "hate groups ("Rightist" also use these terms, but not as often, and not as successfully as the Left). These terms are particularly used by the Left if their opponents express strong distate or dislike or leftist schemes. Rather than examine or dispute the views, they just label them as "hateful" (meaning, beyond the pale, irrational, unworthy of your consideration).

Of course, whole books have been written on the subject of "hate," and what it means. That would not be appropriate to go into all this here.

But the issue here is what does NR mean in the article, by "hate." And do they successfully make their case about Rand: "A greatness stunted by hate."? Jason Lee Steorts (the author) starts off with the obligatory (for NR) bow to the 1957 article that they published by Whittaker Chambers on Atlas Shrugged. (Which article actually makes a few interesting observations, but buries them with an intemperate deluge of invective that could easily be described as "hateful," itself), "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged," wrote Whittaker Chambers 53 years ago, "a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding 'To a gas chamber - go!'" Then, Steorts throws in his kicker, "What he did not write is that Ayn Rand throws in a gas chamber."

And what does he mean by that? Well, he's referring to the incident described by Rand of the train-tunnel asphyxiation of everyone on board an obsolete coal burning train (on orders from Kip Chalmers). Besides the Looters on board who ordered the run, everyone else died. At that point Steorts stopped reading the novel ("I stopped reading because Rand thinks they deserve it." Later, it turns out, that's not really the reason)and therefore makes no real comment on the rest of the novel, including Galt's Speech (although he later includes, in a list of her "literary faults," strangely, "that editorial discipline which gave us John Galt's Speech"). So, he did read further? Three times in the article, he claims he read no further than the train disaster account.

But, he hastens to add that that is not what troubles him about that scene and about Rand. Before he tells you, he trots off on a rambling discussion on why he loves The Fountainhead (brace yourself). Besides the characterizations (he loves Ellsworth Toohey; Roark is boring), and describing it as "Rand's hymm to integrity," he admires Roark's devotion to his work as evidence of his egolessness (This is not a typo). Steorts equates being devoted to one's work as being not concerned with self. Then he adds, "the Randian hero cannot be predatory or exploitive; this would not give him what he wants, because no one outside himself has it to give." After a presentation of his egolessness theory, Steorts suddenly declares, parenthetically, that Chambers got it wrong: "Chambers' statement that the Randian voice commands, 'from painful necessity,' his belief that Rand favors rule by a technocratic elite, and the title of his review, 'Big Sister Is Watching You,' are all, therefore, in error" (italics added).

So, "It's not just the 'gas chamber.' She piles offense upon offense, and they all come down to this: Instead of bringing forth the best within her, she brings forth the barely comprehensible hatred of her derangedly insecure ego." He never makes clear what that means, exactly, but lets loose with a fusillade of accusations:

1) "In her contempt for her creation:.... No villain we can respect and - as readers - enjoy. ...The heroes...are flawlessly, violently beautiful." whereas, the villains are all ugly and have belittling names.

2) Some of the heroes "are first-class haters. Foremost here is Francisco d'Anconia," who he describes as a ruthless playboy musing about using a whip on the Rotters. Also, he manipulates women into falsely claiming affairs with him to ruin their reputations. These skimpy (and inaccurate) examples are all Steorts needs to label him as a "first-class hater."

3) Damnation. "One suspects that God would feel less pleasure damning people," than Rand does. Example? She uses the word "little" (as in "sniveling little neurotic"), which proves that she was really enjoying herself when writing that characterization.

Steorts interrupts his indictment of her faults to offer his explantion of "what went wrong" between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Answer: The Fountainhead describes the best about man (" she looked into herself and gave expression to the finest things she found.....But in Atlas Shrugged Rand instead looked out and showed us the world of men as she sees them. And she sees them viciously." And, "what she showed us was instead was her need to reassure herself, in terms frankly delusional, of her superiority to it."

Apparently, Steorts discounts the characterizations, and the virtues, of the heroes in Atlas Shrugged (but he also had described The Fountainhead's Roark as "boring"). So, it's not the train disaster at all, that bothered him. Earlier in the article he lists two arguments that have been given in defense of that scene: 1) "it is the looters, not the Prime Movers, who make the gas chamber possible and send the train into it;" and 2) "Rand's philosophy is incompatible with totalitarianism, and no one who believed it would ever send anyone to a gas chamber. Both are true." (emphasis added).

This is a startlingly badly written and thought-out article. As for "hate," Steorts does not say whether the actions of the Looters qualify them as being worthy of being hated (see the above dictionary definitions). In fact, he says nothing at all about the actions and intentions of these villains, apparently more upset about how Rand describes their physical appearance. He does not describe in what manner that they don't measure-up to Toohey or Wynand. He does not describe or criticize the plot or the philosophical discussions in the novel. Of course, maybe that is asking too much. After all, he did not read the last half of the novel. How this passes as acceptable literary criticism is beyond me.

As in many/most published criticisms of Rand, Steorts thinks he can get away with mischaracterizing what Rand says. To those who actually did read the novel, his arguments are specious, at best. And for those who will read the novel, and compare what they found to what its severe critics have written about it, it is more likely that they will fault those critics rather than Rand.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hate verb hated, hating, hates. 1. To loathe; detest. 2. To dislike; wish to shun. -intr. To feel hatred. noun. 1. Strong dislike; animosity; hatred. 2. An object of detestation or hatred: a pet hate.

None of these is even a proper definition except "to wish to shun" which has a genus and differentia form, but which is obviously false, since one can wish to shun someone whom one does not hate, and can hate someone whom one does not wish to shun. The other supposed "definitions" are loose synonyms.

Is it too much for a dictionary's editors to provide several senses and to define each in genus and differentia form?

I don't think anyone has provided a more useful definition than I, and certainly no better definition than mine has been given.

Ba'al's "hate the evil and love the good" uses words on a pre-adult, pre-philosophical level in a way similar to the use of terms like force before Galileo and Newton. Does Ba'al think such terms as hate and love and evil and good are so unimportant as not to merit rigorous definition and use?

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