QUOTE(Valliant)
”Why is [Valliant] assuming that others' disagreements or criticisms of [Ayn Rand] are efforts to prove that his hero has feet of clay? It sounds to me as if he's very emotionally invested in smearing anyone who dares to question some of the actions of his hero, or to point out the shoddiness of some of her defenders.
“I think a more important question is why does Jim get so upset that others simply recognize that Rand had faults? Why is he so disturbed by the fact that some of Rand's fans openly talk about her mistakes, instead of having to be backed into a corner and act like reality-denying fools until finally admitting that Rand was sometimes irrational, self-contradictory, harshly judgmental or dishonest?” -- "Jonathan"
Who told this fair-minded chap, Jonathan, that he could call me "Jim"?
(That's for my friends, or at least someone who knows me, "Jon-Jon.")
“I think a more important question is why does Jim get so upset that others simply recognize that Rand had faults? Why is he so disturbed by the fact that some of Rand's fans openly talk about her mistakes, instead of having to be backed into a corner and act like reality-denying fools until finally admitting that Rand was sometimes irrational, self-contradictory, harshly judgmental or dishonest?” -- "Jonathan"
Who told this fair-minded chap, Jonathan, that he could call me "Jim"?
(That's for my friends, or at least someone who knows me, "Jon-Jon.")
No one told me that I could call Valliant "Jim," and I didn't. I was obviously calling James Heaps-Nelson "Jim."
Here's the post of mine in question. How in the ever living fuck did Valliant manage to get it twisted around in his head that I was talking about him?
Here's more from Valliant's comments about what I said:
QUOTE(Valliant)
Is that what I said or even implied -- that all criticism of Rand is an effort to "find feet of clay," and not just certain critics -- and certain specific criticisms? Naming the actual criticisms and the responses involved seems to be forbidden at OL.
Hopefully Valliant now understands that the "Jim" I was referring to was James Heaps-Nelson, and that my comments had nothing to do with anything that Valliant may or may not have said or implied. What are the odds that he'll still not get it straight after reading this post?
More Valliant:
QUOTE(Valliant)
And readers can see the "corner-backing" around here and who's been involved.
Speaking of readers and what they can or can't see, I wouldn't have thought that any readers would have had a problem recognizing that I was talking about James "Jim" Heaps-Nelson in my posts, and not James Valliant.
Valliant quoting me again and commenting:
QUOTE(Valliant)
”I think we all know that Rand had integrity. Some of us have enough honesty and integrity to freely admit that she was sometimes irrational, self-contradictory, harshly judgmental and dishonest.” -- "Jonathan"
Again, don't hold your breath for any specific contradictions or the like, of course.
Again, don't hold your breath for any specific contradictions or the like, of course.
Hey, no need to hold your breath. An example of Rand's dishonesty? Okay. I agreed with Diana Hsieh when she wrote,
QUOTE(Hsieh)
But Rand was obligated to tell the truth about the reason for her break with Branden, which she did not. If she wished to keep the affair private, as would have been reasonable, she could have cited irreconcilable personal differences and even the Brandens' dishonesty. Instead, she fabricated all sorts of false justifications in 'To Whom It May Concern' -- and failed to mention the real reason for the break.
In Basic Principles of Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden argues that honesty requires that we take responsibility for the reasonable inferences of others. Misleading technical truths are not honest. Even if every word that Rand wrote about the Branden's in "To Whom It May Concern" were true, the letter would still fail that test miserably.
Ayn Rand's dishonesty in the aftermath of her break with Nathaniel Branden is certainly disappointing to me, but hardly devastating. I admire Rand as a novelist and a philosopher, but her personal conduct is ultimately irrelevant to me.
In Basic Principles of Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden argues that honesty requires that we take responsibility for the reasonable inferences of others. Misleading technical truths are not honest. Even if every word that Rand wrote about the Branden's in "To Whom It May Concern" were true, the letter would still fail that test miserably.
Ayn Rand's dishonesty in the aftermath of her break with Nathaniel Branden is certainly disappointing to me, but hardly devastating. I admire Rand as a novelist and a philosopher, but her personal conduct is ultimately irrelevant to me.
And here's a simple example of Rand being irrational and self-contradictory:
She defined art as a recreation of reality and said that it cannot serve a utilitarian purpose, yet she categorized architecture as art, despite stating that it served a utilitarian purpose and despite claiming that it does not recreate reality.
As for "harshly judgmental," I'll refer readers to her many comments on the moral and psychological status of a variety of thinkers and artists and their works. Her comments on Dali, Vermeer, Degas, Beethoven and Parrish come to mind off the top of my head. I'd have to get back to you with her exact words. Other than that, there are a wide variety of comments that she made on many different issues ranging from the handicapped, as we've been discussing here on OL recently, to homosexuals ("immoral and disgusting,") etc., that I would think would easily qualify as being "harshly judgmental."
J
