[Ed Hudgins]

The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar

I am writing in response to the controversy on several online discussion boards about The Atlas Society’s 2008 Summer Seminar, and the inclusion of Lindsay Perigo as a speaker on the program. I want to explain our Summer Seminar policies, to place the current controversy in context, and to address real concerns about the wisdom of that invitation.

Our Purpose

The purpose of The Atlas Society is to make Objectivism a recognized and respected perspective or view of life, culture, and politics. In the same way that Cato, Reason, and others have made “libertarianism” a political alternative distinct from liberalism and conservatism, we want to make Objectivism the positive philosophical alternative (using David Kelley’s categories) to the religious, pre-modern worldview and the value-relative, degenerate, postmodern worldview. We do this specifically by (1) calling attention to Objectivism and TAS, by (2) promoting understanding of Objectivism, and by (3) promoting a commitment both to Objectivism and to TAS.

We want to build a benevolent community of Objectivists and a benevolent culture and society based on reason and rational, responsible self-interest. Consistent with this goal, our approach to promoting Objectivism is to do so in an open, rational, and civil manner. Here’s what that approach entails.

Our Open Approach

We do not consider Objectivism to be some fragile, delicate flower-of-a-philosophy that must be protected from any questions, challenges, or engagement with other ideas. Rather, it is a robust philosophy that can withstand criticism and profit from open discussion about its implications and applications.

Thus, we use our events and other venues to explore deeper issues concerning the philosophy and its applications. Our open approach means that we wish to look at how Objectivism fits with new, cutting-edge thinking and discoveries in various disciplines. An excellent example is how Robert Campbell, Jay Friedenberg, Walter Donway, and others have addressed recent work on the brain, mind, and psychology. We believe that such insights strengthen Objectivism rather than undermine or dilute it.

“Open,” however, does not mean that we will engage in any debate over any issue—or that we do not approach issues from a settled, principled framework. We do come from an Objectivist perspective. Therefore we do not wish to squander our resources debating issues, arguments, or discussions that have already been heard and decided.

Our Civil Approach

Consistent with our open approach to discussion is civility in discussion.
A civil approach to discussion and debate entails treating others with respect, and it assumes that we have a common purpose—in our case, the understanding and promotion of Objectivism. It also assumes a community of generally well-intentioned and intellectually honest individuals. Thus, we recognize that many intellectual disagreements are honest ones and not an indication of moral failing, justifying anger and vilification.

We even recognize that critics who have fundamental disagreements with their interlocutors can be civil; I have seen Christopher Hitchens, one of the harshest critics of religion, having civil exchanges with religious right leaders at social gatherings.

Civility is not an end in and of itself out of all context; rather, it is an approach to dealing with others that facilitates goals that are in our rational self-interest.

We also believe that it is possible in particular cases for civil people to have strong personal differences yet agree about intellectual matters or acknowledge intellectual contributions; one might have personal issues with Nathaniel Branden while acknowledging his pioneering work on the psychology of self-esteem or with Leonard Peikoff while acknowledging his fine work in the taped series “Understanding Objectivism.”

I have tried to stay out of the personal infighting on the various discussion boards. And as an institution TAS has focused on the battle for ideas. This has meant that we are not neutral concerning the contributions that individuals have or might make to our institutional goals of promoting Objectivism. For example, I invited Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden to speak at our Atlas 50th event and we posted online a clip of Barbara’s moving remarks. I also have been an admirer the work of Chris Sciabarra, another target of a nasty personal smear campaign, and wish in the future there were some way for him to participate in our events.

TAS has also hosted at its public events speakers on the opposite side of these personal feuds. That’s because our aim has been to focus on the ideas that are of shared interest to all, and to stand above this infighting—even as some have tried their best to draw us into it as raging partisans.

Two Sources of Incivility

Sadly, there has been a propensity among too many Objectivists to reduce intellectual differences to the personal level and to bring the most intemperate forms of incivility to highly visible public arguments. That propensity has been evident largely from two quarters: from individuals prominently associated with the Ayn Rand Institute and also from online discussion boards, notably Lindsay Perigo’s SOLO-Passion.

Most of us know the reaction of many associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, including its co-founder Leonard Peikoff, to David Kelley’s widely discussed address to a libertarian social group in the late 1980s. That group’s libertarian outlook alone was considered by Peikoff and other ARI spokesmen to be prima facie evidence of its intellectual dishonesty or evil; and they further claimed that Kelley was immorally “sanctioning” that dishonesty simply by addressing the group—even if only to tell its members why he believed they were wrong. For that bizarre reason, Kelley was banned from further involvement with ARI.

Ten years ago, U.S. News & World Report published a major article on why Objectivists can’t seem to get along, focusing on the Peikoff-Kelley split. While Rand and Kelley came off okay in the article, the cause of Objectivism was not helped by Peikoff’s comment, “I’d rather blow up the entire Objectivist movement than deal with this slime.”

A second source of this incivility—where juvenile name-calling and vulgar insults are characteristically equated with a commitment to “passion”—has been the website SOLO-Passion. The appalling childishness so often expressed by individuals on that website makes a mockery of the term “rational.” Yes, there are also intelligent comments and rational discussions mixed in with the vitriol, which makes it all the sadder as pearls are trampled beneath the swine. Even Lindsay Perigo, the principal of that website and, sadly, a chief practitioner of and tone-setter for that approach, admits that some of those who post on his site go too far.

The widespread perception that Objectivists are fanatical ideologues who speak of reason but do not practice it, and who are instead irrational, screaming loonies, continues to be fueled by such public statements and actions, which do incredible harm to the spread of the philosophy.

Fostering Openness and Civility

To further our objectives, I have been trying in recent times to bring more reason and civility to the Objectivist movement. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible task, but a pursuit worth continuing.

For example, last year I met with Yaron Brook of ARI at a meeting of the libertarian Atlas Economic Research Foundation. At the event, BB&T chairman and ARI supporter John Allison gave an excellent talk, and Brook stayed on and attended a meeting put on by the conservative Heritage Foundation. I congratulated Brook on this new openness and I pointed out to him that it was for this very sort of thing—addressing “enemy” conservative and libertarian groups—that ARI denounced David Kelley. I insisted that it is time to abandon such practices, which have been to the detriment of Objectivism as well as ARI.

Where my initiative will go, I don’t know, but I have tried. And I do believe that among more responsible organizations, the notion of civility is starting to gain currency.

While I have not, especially of late, been a regular poster on discussion boards, I have tried to remain on civil terms both in public and private with Lindsay Perigo and, as he says, without any pretenses, he has generally remained civil as well. I hope this mutually civil approach continues.

Using the Summer Seminar to Restore Civility

At the Summer Seminar, we seek to develop our understanding and application of Objectivism in an open and civil environment. This certainly influences the talks and speakers we choose.

Thus, we would not be averse to having an ARI speaker discuss why Objectivism should be considered a “closed” rather than “open system.” That is a topic about which honest Objectivists might differ, and one that should have been discussed in such a forum, and in a civil manner, nearly twenty years ago.

However, it would be more problematic to invite someone to speak against intellectual tolerance as such, on the premise that those like Kelley—who hold opinions different from those of Peikoff—are not merely wrong but dishonest or evil. Though such a speaker no doubt would not wish to “sanction” our “evil” by attending such a forum, in any case we would not provide them a platform to denounce us and the policies of openness and civility that we champion.

In fact, we have hosted presentations at the Summer Seminar about strife within the Objectivist movement that were both civil and constructive. Two years ago, I gave a talk on what I call “mature Objectivism.” I argued that the error of mistaking insults for passion or commitment comes, in part, from an intellectual error. Objectivists understand that all actions must have an aim, and that they must be rational, moral, and efficient within a particular context. Thus, if one decides to insult someone, one must ask, “What is the point?” For the most part, Objectivists who indulge in such behavior fail to ask themselves whether their aim is rational and moral and whether the action is actually effective.

To take another example, in 2006 Barbara Branden gave a Summer Seminar talk on “Objectivist Rage.” When she proposed the topic, I was skeptical. I did not want “flame wars” from online discussion boards to spill over into the Summer Seminar. I didn’t want Barbara to bash Lindsay any more than I would want Lindsay to bash Barbara at our events. But she explained to me her proposed approach and we let her go ahead. The result was a thoughtful, reasoned, impressive, and civil approach to the topic. We posted her remarks on our website and remain grateful for her intellectual contribution to the movement.

So, if our Summer Seminar can be used to promote civility and end needless discord, I’m more than happy to use it as such. However, in light of the TAS commitment to the principles discussed above, I don’t intend to let the Summer Seminar be used to perpetuate the very incivility against which we have been fighting.

The Current Controversy

In the past Lindsay Perigo has given quality presentations at Summer Seminars that were well-received by attendees. With this in mind and hoping to promote greater harmony within the Objectivist movement, Will invited Lindsay Perigo to the Summer Seminar to speak on music and on “Objectivism's Greatest Enemy: Objectivists.” I have not seen the summary of this talk; however, Lindsay did write to Will that “I’ll speak about something non-fratricidal.”

In the aftermath that invitation, controversy has exploded—much of it fueled by Lindsay’s comments.

For example, about participants on the competing Objectivist Living discussion board, Lindsay writes that that “crowd … are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.” About statements posted on that discussion board—which he always refers to as “Objectivist Lying”—he writes: “It makes my second talk on ‛Objectivism’s Worst Enemies’ as easy as my first on music. I just have to read out this stuff, say ‘I rest my case’ and get bundled off by my bodyguards.”

This propensity for incivility is alarming. Such remarks are clearly “fratricidal,” in my judgment, and they cause me to worry that his talk will not promote the civility that TAS seeks. Now, we face the very real prospect that the very sort of fratricidal conflict that we have been working hard to overcome will in fact be perpetuated at our Summer Seminar—ironically—by our very attempt to end it.

While some might argue that the posters on other discussion boards started the current controversy, those posters have also dredged up many of the past insults by Lindsay, many of which I and certainly Will Thomas probably missed. Thus, in hindsight, we at TAS should have expected such a storm of controversy.

More alarming, we also have been made aware of discussions on SOLO-Passion by some who have led personality-based jihads, who are proposing to host a participant-sponsored session at the seminar to ventilate their divisive views—and even to invite other outsiders who have expressed their contempt for TAS.

But to be clear, participant-sponsored sessions are open only to those who pay to attend the Summer Seminar. And while we leave the topics of those sessions open to almost any intellectual interest of the participants, we will not permit them to be used merely to perpetuate the personal ill-will they foment on discussion boards. Civility is the watchword at those sessions, as well.

Lindsay challenges those who oppose him to “come to my two presentations anyway. At the very least, you won’t be bored. My aim will be not merely not to bore you but to thought-provoke and uplift you also. Who knows, I might succeed? What have you to lose?” However, given the post-invitation discussions he’s led at SOLO-Passion, we now wonder whether we are about to be blind-sided. In that event, we would have plenty to lose.

Now I must ask Lindsay: Exactly what is your topic and what are your intentions? Is your aim truly to reduce “fratricide” within the movement, as we had hoped? Clearly TAS does not want to be the victim of some kind of “bait-and-switch.”

This, then, is a challenge. I want Lindsay Perigo to commit publicly to joining me in undoing the incivility in the movement that he himself has too frequently helped to foster. This, of course, means being civil in the content of any speech at TAS and in behavior at any TAS event.

But the challenge goes further. If all the energy and—yes—passion that has gone into internecine battles among Objectivists were expended instead on developing and promoting the philosophy in a constructive way, we would be much further along than we are today. Therefore I would like Lindsay to commit to this wider goal of building an open and civil Objectivist movement and to start it with SOLO-Passion, the forum for so much ill-will. I want to hear some proposals.

No, I do not expect him to withhold honest criticisms about ideas he considers mistaken. I do not expect him to become less of the colorful character that he is. I do not expect him to feign friendship with individuals with whom he has had personal fallings-out. I do not expect that he will make up with Nathaniel Branden and Barabara Branden, Sciabarra or others from whom he is estranged, nor is it my purpose to get in the middle of such relationships.

Rather, it is my purpose to influence the direction of the movement—and that is where Lindsay’s help, and everybody else’s, can be useful.

We at TAS have worked very hard both to promote an open, civil Objectivist movement. We have insisted on high-quality work. I hope our friends appreciate our past successes. We have future plans to make Objectivism a powerful philosophical force to be reckoned with. I hope our efforts can convert to friends from foes those who share our commitment to Objectivism.

If to achieve our goals we must make changes to any of our programs and activities, we will do so. We’re committed to ruthless self-examination, and open to constructive criticism.

To those ends, I await a constructive public response and commitment from Lindsay, which will help us determine whether his talk at the 2008 Summer Seminar will be consistent with our mission and purposes.

Sincerely,

Dr. Edward Hudgins,
Executive Director, The Atlas Society

[Laure]

Neil, if you differ with Rand on certain philosophical issues or positions, that's fine. I differ with Rand on a few things as well. But she is still my hero. What I am sick and tired of, is the insistence that Rand was fundamentally immoral, and the insistence that anyone who thinks she was good is some kind of a cultist. I don't care to see one of my heroes constantly picked at in that manner. Some on this site picked at Jim the same way when he asserted that he does not lie. I could almost see Nelson from The Simpsons, pointing and laughing, "Ha Ha! Jim says he doesn't lie! That's so stupid, everybody knows that everybody is dishonest!!" What does that say about Nelson?

Shayne, I think it IS virtuous to ignore parts of reality just to be able to "fly the banner high". Ignoring the minor flaws, or just personality traits you might not have liked, about your hero IS a good thing, just like it's a good thing to ignore the minor flaws of your spouse and focus instead on what you love about him or her. If that makes me, or Jim, a cultist, so be it.

[sjw]

Laure, on Jan 20 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

What I am sick and tired of, is the insistence that Rand was fundamentally immoral, and the insistence that anyone who thinks she was good is some kind of a cultist.

So, did anyone actually do this? Or is this just Perigo Propaganda?

Quote

Shayne, I think it IS virtuous to ignore parts of reality just to be able to "fly the banner high". Ignoring the minor flaws, or just personality traits you might not have liked, about your hero IS a good thing, just like it's a good thing to ignore the minor flaws of your spouse and focus instead on what you love about him or her. If that makes me, or Jim, a cultist, so be it.

There's a vast difference between evading flaws and regarding Ayn Rand as a hero in spite of them. The cultist crowd can't handle the truth so they evade, rational people can both regard Ayn Rand as a hero as well as recognize that she made mistakes.

What a shame that so many take her philosophy of independence and first-handedness and pervert it into a religious cult.


Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Laure, on Jan 20 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

Neil, if you differ with Rand on certain philosophical issues or positions, that's fine. I differ with Rand on a few things as well. But she is still my hero. What I am sick and tired of, is the insistence that Rand was fundamentally immoral, and the insistence that anyone who thinks she was good is some kind of a cultist. I don't care to see one of my heroes constantly picked at in that manner. Some on this site picked at Jim the same way when he asserted that he does not lie. I could almost see Nelson from The Simpsons, pointing and laughing, "Ha Ha! Jim says he doesn't lie! That's so stupid, everybody knows that everybody is dishonest!!" What does that say about Nelson?

Shayne, I think it IS virtuous to ignore parts of reality just to be able to "fly the banner high". Ignoring the minor flaws, or just personality traits you might not have liked, about your hero IS a good thing, just like it's a good thing to ignore the minor flaws of your spouse and focus instead on what you love about him or her. If that makes me, or Jim, a cultist, so be it.

Laure, On this list at least we see Rand as fundamentally moral and good. I think she was a titanic hero of the 20th Century, certainly a hero of mine. While I also consider Objectivism to be a work in progress on many levels she's up there on top of the skyscraper--on top of the construction going on below. She'll always be there; the construction too.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 19 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 19 2008, 04:04 AM, said:

My point was that this issue is much greater than a personality dispute.

Yes, it is. It's a continuation of the issue which resulted in the split between Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley. New guise, same battle. As I see the battle, it's that of which matters more to the Objectivist world, reality or Ayn Rand's image? Or another way of saying it, is Objectivism a philosophy or a religion with a deified human as its "supernatural" figure?

In a post of his on the SOLO list, James Heaps-Nelson let the cat out of the bag, I think, as to why those who are keen on having Linz talk at TAS are keen.

SEE

He wrote:

Quote

I think there's a hidden subtext to all of this that is missed. There are those of us who want to see Ayn Rand's banner flown high without apology or qualification. Given all that she accomplished, she deserves that much.

I respect Jim; I even sympathize with where I believe he's coming from -- for one thing, he's tired of all the dwelling on history instead of "getting about it" addressing the relationships between Objectivism and science (much more troublesome relationships, imo, than in what I understand to be Jim's opinion).

BUT. Asking for Ayn Rand's banner to be "flown high without apology or qualification" I can only view as asking for the acceptance of a myth which never should have been started in the first place and which Ayn Rand herself bought -- even partly started -- about herself. E.g., the biographical essay in Who Is Ayn Rand? -- which to an extent is a hagiography -- wouldn't have been published without her accepting the image presented.

Jim has said previously something to the effect, I don't recall on which site in which thread, that a reason he wants Linz invited is because Linz presents Rand in the way he wants.

That way I consider mythical. Thus I see the choice as one between truth or myth -- and this episode as yet another in the ongoing clash between the respective versions of Ayn Rand various persons want to have prevail.

Ellen

___

An additional problem that I have with many of Rand's "banner flyers" is that their idea of respecting accomplishments "without apology or qualification" doesn't seem to apply to anyone but Rand. It's perfectly acceptable to them to trash some of the most accomplished thinkers and creators in history (or to remain silent about the fact that Rand unjustly trashed them). Rand is the only one whose errors, contradictions and groundless moral judgments are not to be discussed as relevant to her work and character.

Btw, here's a suggestion to Rand's banner flyers: Don't claim that Rand was morally perfect, and don't dare people to come up with examples in which she consciously breached her own convictions if you really don't want to discuss the issue. Crying that people are Rand-bashers when you're not able to refute their answers to the challenges that you've posed isn't going to convert anyone to your cause. It's just going to make you look like religious zealots.

J

This post has been edited by Jonathan: 20 January 2008 - 01:48 PM

[Jonathan]

Laure, on Jan 20 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

Quote

I think there's a hidden subtext to all of this that is missed. There are those of us who want to see Ayn Rand's banner flown high without apology or qualification. Given all that she accomplished, she deserves that much.

This quote is a real litmus test. This is not making Rand into a God and worshipping her. This quote expresses the feelings of a valuer, not a cultist. I'm with Jim.

I'm a valuer, too, but what would you suggest that I do when someone I value is a little too full of herself and decides to trash other great achievers whose "banners I fly without apology or qualification"? My position has been to defend the achievers against the unjustified attacks, despite the fact that the attacks came from Rand or her banner flyers. When Rand used intimidation as a substitute for argument, made unsupported or contradictory claims about subjects on which she had no expertise, or made groundless psychological or moral judgments about others, including great achievers I admire, what would you suggest that I do, side with Rand (or silently overlook her viciousness) because her greatness was so great that she deserves my loyalty even when she was pissing on greatness?

I could understand the idea of forgiving Rand's nastiness, putting her stupid judgments in the past, and focusing on nothing but the value that we get from her art and ideas, but only after her most vocal "banner flyers" stop mimicking her viciousness as if it's the primary Objectivist virtue. The unfortunate dark aspects of Rand's personality are not minor issues that have long been dead and buried, but are alive and well, and in some cases are trying to lead the Objectivist movement.

[sjw]

Laure, on Jan 20 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

Shayne, I think it IS virtuous to ignore parts of reality just to be able to "fly the banner high". Ignoring the minor flaws, or just personality traits you might not have liked, about your hero IS a good thing, just like it's a good thing to ignore the minor flaws of your spouse and focus instead on what you love about him or her.

I just want to add that I think it would be disasterous to have a policy of paying attention only to the good in your lover and ignoring the bad (at least, concerning volitional issues). It denies psychological visibility, and it handicaps your lover rather than helping them change for the better. There is probably no worse thing you can do to someone than to pretend that their chosen flaws do not matter.

Quote

If that makes me, or Jim, a cultist, so be it.

This is practically the Peikoff quote, and it is a deplorable attitude. This is precisely the attitude expressed in: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself...", it is a totally irrational, whim-worshiping, self-indulgent and immature attitude.

Grow up!


Shayne

[Jonathan]

Laure, on Jan 20 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

What I am sick and tired of, is the insistence that Rand was fundamentally immoral, and the insistence that anyone who thinks she was good is some kind of a cultist.

Please name names and give specific examples. Who has said that Rand was fundamentally immoral? Who has said that anyone who thinks that Rand was good is a cultist?

Laure, on Jan 20 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

Shayne, I think it IS virtuous to ignore parts of reality just to be able to "fly the banner high". Ignoring the minor flaws, or just personality traits you might not have liked, about your hero IS a good thing, just like it's a good thing to ignore the minor flaws of your spouse and focus instead on what you love about him or her. If that makes me, or Jim, a cultist, so be it.

By what standard do you judge a person's flaws to be minor and deserving of being overlooked? I'm an artist, and I both create and admire a wide variety of types of art. By both Rand's personal judgments and her formal philosophical ideas, her view was that my tastes mean that I lack self-esteem, that I'm monstrously immoral, that I'm disgusting, subhuman and vile. Her words were aimed at me, and at good people I admire. Am I to understand that you expect me to overlook those judgments as "minor flaws"?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, on Jan 20 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

I'm a valuer, too, but what would you suggest that I do when someone I value is a little too full of herself and decides to trash other great achievers whose "banners I fly without apology or qualification"? My position has been to defend the achievers against the unjustified attacks, despite the fact that the attacks came from Rand or her banner flyers. When Rand used intimidation as a substitute for argument, made unsupported or contradictory claims about subjects on which she had no expertise, or made groundless psychological or moral judgments about others, including great achievers I admire, what would you suggest that I do, side with Rand (or silently overlook her viciousness) because her greatness was so great that she deserves my loyalty even when she was pissing on greatness?

I could understand the idea of forgiving Rand's nastiness, putting her stupid judgments in the past, and focusing on nothing but the value that we get from her art and ideas, but only after her most vocal "banner flyers" stop mimicking her viciousness as if it's the primary Objectivist virtue. The unfortunate dark aspects of Rand's personality are not minor issues that have long been dead and buried, but are alive and well, and in some cases are trying to lead the Objectivist movement.

I don't know, Jonathan. Is "nastiness," "stupid judgments," "viciousness," "pissing on greatness" and the like primarily what comes to mind for you when you think of Ayn Rand? You're not a member of an anti-AR cult here, you know.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan, on Jan 20 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

By what standard do you judge a person's flaws to be minor and deserving of being overlooked? I'm an artist, and I both create and admire a wide variety of types of art. By both Rand's personal judgments and her formal philosophical ideas, her view was that my tastes mean that I lack self-esteem, that I'm monstrously immoral, that I'm disgusting, subhuman and vile. Her words were aimed at me, and at good people I admire. Am I to understand that you expect me to overlook those judgments as "minor flaws"?

I understand how an artist can feel the way you do, but I don't know particularly where you get this stuff from Rand. I'm not an artist myself so I've not focused strongly on these things.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think discussing Rand's virtues and shortcomings should follow the same standard used for everyone else. There are times and places for each.

Here is a good example: TAS did the 50th Anniversary Celebration of Atlas Shrugged. I did a report on it. No Rand criticism. That was not the time nor the place. One does not bicker with a person at her birthday party.

When discussing issues like, say, Gary Merrill's criticism of Rand's written scholarship methods to understand why there is a resistance to Rand among academics, it might be a good idea to admit the documented shortcomings, chalk them up to personal quirks and focus on the value in her writing rather than try to defend the indefensible based on the wish to honor a heroine. There is no way to shove Rand down the throats of scholars and make them betray their own values (like sound scholarship) just because someone feels that Rand was a heroine. However, the soundness of some of her ideas can be demonstrated and, as has been happening, many academics are open to those ideas when presented in peer reviewed journals like JARS.

There is a time to celebrate Rand as heroine and a time to discuss her downside (and her upside). Trying to impose either on the wrong context is what makes a person a cultist or Rand-hater.

Neither is the case with OL posters in general. Once again, the standard is objectivity and context.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Brant Gaede, on Jan 20 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

I don't know, Jonathan. Is "nastiness," "stupid judgments," "viciousness," "pissing on greatness" and the like primarily what comes to mind for you when you think of Ayn Rand?

No, but I wouldn't say that those aspects of her personality and philosophy are something that can just be overlooked. I think they should be acknowledged, corrected, and not repeated.

Also, those things -- "nastiness," "stupid judgments," "viciousness," "pissing on greatness" -- are primarily what come to mind when I think of some of Rand's followers, like Lindsay Perigo. He and some of his acolytes are little imitations of Rand at her most irrationally contemptuous (without her originality and brilliance to balance it out).

Brant Gaede, on Jan 20 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

You're not a member of an anti-AR cult here, you know.

Who is? Barnes, Parille, Dragonfly? If so, they've had some surprisingly good things to say about Rand while substantively (and usually politely) disagreeing with her views. And I don't recall any of them saying that Rand was fundamentally immoral or that anyone who thinks she was good is a cultist.

Brant Gaede, on Jan 20 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

I understand how an artist can feel the way you do, but I don't know particularly where you get this stuff from Rand. I'm not an artist myself so I've not focused strongly on these things.

You might think about reading (or re-reading) the Romantic Manifesto.

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

Brant Gaede, on Jan 20 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Jonathan, on Jan 20 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

Her words were aimed at me, and at good people I admire.

I don't know particularly where you get this stuff from Rand.

Poor kid, all upset because it wasn't good enough to have monopoly mainstream irrationalist whim-worshipping praise, a free ticket to obscenity with government grants and 10,000 community colleges voting yes to whatever crap anybody cares to -- er -- "create" loosely speaking without defining our terms, which would be judgmental. Open any copy of the New York Times, any page pertaining to the arts, exhibitions, theater, books, film, television. Zero threat of Objectivist critics past, present or future. See? Jonathan wins. No child left behind and it takes a village, provided we honor David Ogilvy's tried and true 100% flagwaving American standard of excellence: It isn't creative if it doesn't sell. Gangsta hip-hop on MTV is art. How cool is that. Or should I say cold?

This post has been edited by Wolf DeVoon: 20 January 2008 - 06:33 PM

[Jonathan]

Wolf DeVoon, on Jan 20 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

Brant Gaede, on Jan 20 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Jonathan, on Jan 20 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

Her words were aimed at me, and at good people I admire.

I don't know particularly where you get this stuff from Rand.

Poor kid, all upset because it wasn't good enough to have monopoly mainstream irrationalist whim-worshipping praise, a free ticket to obscenity with government grants and 10,000 community colleges voting yes to whatever crap anybody cares to -- er -- "create" (loosely speaking without defining our terms, which would be judgmental). Open any copy of the New York Times, any page pertaining to the arts, exhibitions, theater, books, film, television. Zero threat of Objectivist critics past, present or future. See? Jonathan wins. No child left behind and it takes a village, provided we honor David Ogilvy's tried and true 100% flagwaving American standard of excellence: It isn't creative if it doesn't sell. Gansta hip-hop on MTV is art. How cool is that. Or should I say cold?

WTF?

I oppose government grants, as well as any type of government involvement in the arts.

Gangsta rap, or any other art form, doesn't cease to be art if I don't like it.

J

[Neil Parille]

Laure,

You said:

Quote

What I am sick and tired of, is the insistence that Rand was fundamentally immoral, and the insistence that anyone who thinks she was good is some kind of a cultist.

I certainly don't believe this, and I'm not sure who does.

[Kat]

It's only natural to look more critically at the flaws of those you dislike and look past things you wouldn't normally ignore in those you admire. That is not necessarily cult behavior, its normal human behavior. If Ayn Rand wants to criticize and call my rock music katerwauling, fine. If Linz does it, he's an effing jerk!

Anyway, I'll just say that I really felt betrayed and hurt by TAS rejecting Roger, Robert and Phil and not extending an invite to Barbara or Nathaniel. When Linz was invited, that explained a lot. Maybe Will Thomas is the scapegoat on this one, but with an organization as small as TAS, it seems very odd that no one had veto power over this. It was like a slap in the face to many of us over here. And I am sure many will look at TAS far more critically in the future because of this episode. I know I will.

Kat

[Wolf DeVoon]

Jonathan, on Jan 20 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

I oppose government grants, as well as any type of government involvement in the arts.
Gangsta rap, or any other art form, doesn't cease to be art if I don't like it.

Okay...
1. Certify you never studied art at a government supported school, never had a Pell grant.
2. Define "art."

W.

[Brant Gaede]

I wonder what Michael thinks of "katerwauling"?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Don't get me started on music epistemology. Like it or not, gazillions of people freely pay oodles of money for the stuff. No one forces them. So it obviously suits a human need on a basic enough level to attract the gazillions.

I have some theories I have been working on, but I need to save that for later when they are more mature.

This is an aside, but I have started The Poetics by Aristotle. He mentioned something really important that is rarely discussed in Objectivism: that art is imitation and that children learn their grown-up skills by imitation. I just read that and I am still reeling a bit from the implications on aesthetic theory from a human nature angle. (And, of course, not as the whole story, but as a critical component.) Simple rhythms certainly are imitations of normal repetitive movements used in many skills.

(Off to mull a bit...)

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 20 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

Don't get me started on music epistemology.

For the record, we need to distinguish between music and lyrics.

W.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

Of course.

Michael