The Rewrite Squad

[Jonathan]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 8, Q&A

CD 2, track 6, 1:50 through 5:36

Now, this is epistemologically wrong—the second question—and that is its connection to the first question:

If the universe is benevolent, why does Kira in We the Living die? Why does Miss Rand protect her, project her as dying, just as she’s about to achieve her life’s goal of freedom?

Uhh, this is really being concrete-bound...

I think the above is the type of answer that makes people perceive Rand as rude, self-contradictory, or as having double standards (one for praising her own art and another for condemning others' art). It's not quite as rude as her answer to the question about the differences in the novel and movie versions of The Fountainhead, which she didn't really answer but rather insulted the questioner and praised herself. But, to people who are familiar with her statements about which artistic elements represent glorious, heroic visions of existence, and which represent "malevolent" (or even "monstrous") visions, they know that she was very critical of the idea of novels lacking happy endings. Those familiar with her opinions know that it would be a natural question for someone to ask her why her novel is apparently exempt from such judgements, or why others' novels couldn't also be exempt. Why would her harsh statements about tragic endings and malevolence not apply to her novel?

If the questioner was being "concrete-bound," then I think that Rand could also be accused of being "concrete-bound" for opposing tragic endings, or for suggesting that any novel (other than hers, or course) could be judged based on whether or not it had one, as opposed to judging each novel by its entire context and content as she judged her own.

J

[Robert Campbell]

Jonathan,

I certainly don't think the questioner was being "concrete-bound."

Rand could have come right out and said that We the Living was a tragedy, then defended it as such.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan,

I certainly don't think the questioner was being "concrete-bound."

Rand could have come right out and said that We the Living was a tragedy, then defended it as such.

Robert Campbell

It's like she morally criticizes people who ask her questions she senses are not up to her speed--an expression of impatience. A case can be made for this moral intellectualism, but not so much of it, just as a case can be made for drinking water, but not so much it kills you.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 16:19 through 18:09

Q: Miss Rand, would you make any comments on the upcoming Bakke controversy and how it might be contested on the university level, in the classroom?

A: Oh well, I have written on a similar case, and that was the one in California—what was his name?

Moderator: De Funis.

A: De Funis, yes. I certainly was, um, supporting De Funis and I would support Bakke in exactly the same way. Because if one is not a racist, one cannot have reverse discrimination quotas. Racial quotas are vicious, in any form, at any time, in any place, and for any purpose whatsoever. The whole … [applause] the whole Affirmative Action program is vicious. It isn't profiting anybody; it isn't improving the lot of the minorities. It is giving jobs and patronage and pull to leaders of minority groups. And observe that only the racists that get, got themselves organized get anything out of it, if you call it an advantage.

I think it's as unfair, un-American, and unjust as any current action, and I hope to God that the Supreme Court will be brave enough to forbid it once and for all in every form whatsoever. We are supposed to be color-blind, and that's what we should be. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 105)

Mayhew inserts a reference to her Ayn Rand Letter article, "Moral inflation, Part III," where she discussed De Funis.

It's hard to hear the difference between "races" and "racists" in running speech, but I'm sure she said "racists," which would be consistent with her usual rhetoric.

It's giving jobs and patronage and pull to the leaders of minority groups, and observe that only the races that got themselves organized get anything out of it (if you could call it an advantage).

Rand doesn't mention the quotas against Jews in Russia under the Czars. But one would have to think she had them in mind.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 15:10 through 16:18

(Questioner is off-mike, rambles, has a sore throat and a speech impediment)

Moderator: If there were any aspect of this country's behavior that you could change, what would you change?

A: The universities, of course. I don't know whether you'd call that behavior; I wouldn't ever think in terms of people's behavior, because behavior is only a consequence. You have to think in terms of people's ideas.

So if I had to, if I had a, ub, short-cut to changing people's ideas fast, I would change the philosophy departments of today's universities. [some applause]

The Objectivist Calendar #17 (December 1978), p. 2

The universities, of course. I don't know whether you'd call that behavior. I wouldn't think in terms of behavior, because behavior is only a consequence. You have to think in terms of people's ideas. So if I had a magic power to change things fast, I would change the philosophy departments of today's universities.

Rand's own editing preserves the original emphasis patterns; She went with Judge Lurie's rendition of the question—a wise move, in this case.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 175-176)

Mayhew reproduces Rand's edited version.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 9:00 through 9:41

Q: Could you comment on the prospects of peace in the Middle East, especially in light of the negotiations between Sadat and Begin in the last several months? [Ed Hudgins]

A: I truly have nothing to say about that, and I don't think I am the only one. No one is saying anything that makes any kind of sense. The prospects are anybody's guess, and, again, the only clearly wrong policy is Mr. Carter's. [Laughter] He is, ehh, very consistent in that respect.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 97)

I have nothing to say about that—and I'm not the only one. No one is saying anything that makes sense. The prospects are anybody's guess, and, again, the only clearly wrong policy is Mr. Carter's. He is very consistent in that respect.

Mayhew usually changes "Mr. Carter" to "Carter," but not on this occasion.

Also worth noting is how Mayhew cut the question down to "Would you comment on the prospects for peace in the Middle East?"

In fact, the Camp David Accords between Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat were the product of Jimmy Carter's only initiative that worked.

[jeffrey smith]

Rand doesn’t mention the quotas against Jews in Russia under the Czars. But one would have to think she had them in mind.]

And not merely in Russia. There were also the Jewish quotas used by American universities and the "no Hebrews" policies of a number of hotels and other places in the last quarter of the 19th century through the 1930s. There's at least one well known film on the topic (Gentleman's Agreement). One major hospital here in Miami was started by a group of Jewish doctors because no existing hospital would allow Jews staff privileges--and that was, I believe in the 1940s or even '50s. Rand's family was, being middle class, exactly of the type which was most impacted by the Czarist quotas; even to live in St. Petersburg required circumventing or complying with residency restrictions, since it was outside the "Pale of Settlement".

I remember when Bakke was being considered, the president of our synagogue got up and made a speech--which itself was fairly unusual--against affirmative action, and his main point was that Jews should oppose it because of their own history of being restricted by quotas.

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

It's been a long time since I read the Ayn Rand Letter installment that commented on the De Funis case.

My recollection is that the piece mentioned quotas against Jews in the United States. But she didn't bring the issue up again in her comments on the Bakke case.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 12:10 through 15:08

Q: Miss Rand, the philosophy professors that I’ve had that comment on your works all say they fail to find argumentation for your views. Uh, could you…

A: I will not answer. If you repeat the question, I will just stand here.

Moderator: Would you like another question and just let this one go, because she will not answer it?

(Some back and forth with questioner. Moderator rephrases question, then says Miss Rand will not answer it.)

A: Now, I will answer, just, uh, the audience generally.

You who know my writing or heard me speak, you know that I give more clearly thought out and logical reasons for my views than anybody living or writing today. And I mean anybody… [Applause] Thank you very much.

(Moderator tries to cut in)

Now, I want to explain, I want to explain what was improper about this young man’s question, and why I will not answer him.

You know, there was some time ago a petty little scandal in Washington involving, oh, Hamilton Jordan. Uh, he had insulted the wife of the, I think, yeh, the Egyptian ambassador. And this, uh, ambassador said a very wise thing. He said, “The person who repeats an insult is the person who insults me.” That is what I am saying to this young questioner.

He had no business repeating such a vicious, vicious lie to me. He had no business doing it, if he knew me, in private—and certainly not in public. That is dirty. And I have never claimed that I’m broad-minded enough to listen to every kind of swill. And that’s the first time in the history of the Ford Hall Forum that anybody has permitted himself that much intellectual cheapness. [Tepid applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 132)

Let me explain what is improper about this young man’s question, and why I won’t answer him. Some time ago there was a little scandal in Washington involving Hamilton Jordan, who had insulted the wife of the Egyptian ambassador. This ambassador said something very wise: “The person who repeats an insult is the person who insults me.” That’s my response to this questioner. He had no business repeating such a vicious lie to me—not in private, if he knew me, and certainly not in public. I am not broad-minded enough to listen to every kind of swill.

Now, I’ll answer the audience generally. Anyone who knows my writings or lectures knows that I give more clearly thought out and logical reasons for my views than anybody today—and I mean anybody.

Mayhew reorders the two parts of the answer and cuts way down on the angry rhetoric.

To legitimize his editorial practices, Mayhew likes to quote from his own edited version of a comment Rand made during her lectures on nonfiction writing. But one of the conditions Rand put on her spoken answers being turned into published work was that the questions be "proper." And, obviously, when she declares a question improper, that condition is not being met.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think the young man went to the FHF with the intent to insult AR. We cannot judge it an insult from him to her for we never heard his question or the context the question would have given to the "insult." The original remark of the professor(s) was an insult while the repeated remark was made an insult by AR herself by truncating the context and probably the young man's interest in her and her ideas. Note it was improbable that the prof brought up AR at all, but that his student did. In the 1960s and presumably the 70s many students were constantly at loggerheads with their profs over AR. They wanted to talk about her and the profs didn't. That was my experience and it was common across the country. This may partially explain why LP had trouble getting a job: he didn't fit into the chummy prof-club mold. Would Hook have treated him differently if he had been a dyed in the wool Kantian instead of a Randian? I suspect he might have.

In the famous Donahue show it was all insult--the preface to the question and the question too therefore, but the whole ball of wax was from one person--no repeating of anything. AR didn't do a very good job of handling that either. In both cases one gets the impression of what seems to be a fragile ego surrounded by an extremely hard shell. In private with friends she could let her guard down and be very pleasant, but it would be the primary duty of such friends to substitute for the shell and they'd have to be very careful and protective of that ego.

Of course I don't know if the above is a true and decent explanation of her in respect to these things, but it's legitimate speculation.

--Brant

Edited January 31, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's something about Rand's "kill the messenger" approach here that bothers me. It seems like overkilling the messenger.

I think it's this.

If a person has no notion that something is a lie, how can he be judged to be repeating a "vicious, vicious lie" as if he were out to discredit Rand on purpose, told he is the real one who insults her (drawing on a "very wise" statement by an Egyptian ambassador for illustration) and be called "dirty"?

I can't know what was in that young man's head, but I certainly think it is plausible for his question to be motivated by a sincere desire to understand why the philosophy professors he met kept saying bad things about Rand's argumentation. In other words, maybe all he wanted to do was clear up some confusion in his mind from observing things that didn't add up.

Rand comes off as a bully in this episode.

Granted, she is reacting, not acting, but she cut off communication during a public Q&A and called a questioner names ("dirty," conveyor of "swill," and the first person in Ford Hall Forum history to permit "himself that much intellectual cheapness") without even trying to understand whether the questioner was coming from an innocent place or a hostile one.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

There's something about Rand's "kill the messenger" approach here that bothers me. It seems like overkilling the messenger.

I think it's this.

If a person has no notion that something is a lie, how can he be judged to be repeating a "vicious, vicious lie" as if he were out to discredit Rand on purpose, told he is the real one who insults her (drawing on a "very wise" statement by an Egyptian ambassador for illustration) and be called "dirty"?

I can't know what was in that young man's head, but I certainly think it is plausible for his question to be motivated by a sincere desire to understand why the philosophy professors he met kept saying bad things about Rand's argumentation. In other words, maybe all he wanted to do was clear up some confusion in his mind from observing things that didn't add up.

Rand comes off as a bully in this episode.

Granted, she is reacting, not acting, but she cut off communication during a public Q&A and called a questioner names ("dirty," conveyor of "swill," and the first person in Ford Hall Forum history to permit "himself that much intellectual cheapness") without even trying to understand whether the questioner was coming from an innocent place or a hostile one.

Michael

Agreed, Michael. I think it's entirely possible the questioner was looking for information to use to argue with his philosophy professors. If so, I would consider his question to be asked in a clumsy fashion, but hardly insulting.

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

I don't think the young man went to the FHF with the intent to insult AR. We cannot judge it an insult from him to her for we never heard his question or the context the question would have given to the "insult." The original remark of the professor(s) was an insult while the repeated remark was made an insult by AR herself by truncating the context and probably the young man's interest in her and her ideas. Note it was improbable that the prof brought up AR at all, but that his student did. In the 1960s and presumably the 70s many students were constantly at loggerheads with their profs over AR. They wanted to talk about her and the profs didn't. That was my experience and it was common across the country. This may partially explain why LP had trouble getting a job: he didn't fit into the chummy prof-club mold. Would Hook have treated him differently if he had been a dyed in the wool Kantian instead of a Randian? I suspect he might have.

In the famous Donahue show it was all insult--the preface to the question and the question too therefore, but the whole ball of wax was from one person--no repeating of anything. AR didn't do a very good job of handling that either. In both cases one gets the impression of what seems to be a fragile ego surrounded by an extremely hard shell. In private with friends she could let her guard down and be very pleasant, but it would be the primary duty of such friends to substitute for the shell and they'd have to be very careful and protective of that ego.

Of course I don't know if the above is a true and decent explanation of her in respect to these things, but it's legitimate speculation.

--Brant

Brant; This was an excellent post. When I heard this I remember thinking that Miss Rand is very thin skinned. I thought the questioner was not insulting her. I think some of my disillusion with Ayn Rand started then.

[Neil Parille]

I belive the two new biographies say that Rand refused to go on television shows without knowing the questions in advance and that no question could include a reference to her critics.

For a person who believes "I give more clearly thought out and logical reasons for my views than anybody living or writing today. And I mean anybody" she comes across as kind of petty.

-Neil Parille

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

I am at the last three pages of the Burn's book. I have a habit of marking and annotating my books which is why my first time read is quite slow, but I retain a significant amount of the details.

This is an excellent book.

On page 280, Ms. Burns cogently points out, after a quoted statement about someone being disillusioned by one of Rand's late in life events, that:

"To those who had known Rand intimately or seen her attack questioners at an NBI lecture, the revelations of her personal failings were less shocking."

I would add the word much before less.

As Chris astutely mentioned, his disillusionment began when the objective reality of Ayn being fully human, with all the warts, began then.

I realize now, how lucky I was to have perceived that aspect of her personality when I was 17 ish and saw that same "vicious" behavior by her in the early 1960's. I have to tell you it was personally painful to see the "gut wrenching impact" her totally uncalled for savaging of a wide-eyed questioner, who just got humiliated in front of two hundred or so fellow "Objectivists", seekers and those who considered themselves the new radical New York "intellectual" class.

She hurt people. It was conscious. Yes, Michael, it was being a bully. And after she saw the effect, a look of "dark pleasure" came over her eyes and face.

Seeing that same low self esteem look in Branden when I interviewed him, covered by the austere pompous mask that he wore, was also quite illuminating.

It was one of the main reasons that I did not pursue an NBI "career" or get "further involved" in the internal machinations of the "cult-like" structure that was being created in the mid to late sixties.

Thank you once again Robert for doing this heavy lifting work. It is important long term.

As everyone is recovering from their Randian hangovers, this will be an important piece of the cure.

Hair of the dog remedy.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

The questioner can be heard pretty clearly on the recording (they were using floor mikes at Ford Hall Forum by then, though with variable results). You can hear for yourself on the commercial recording, or over at atlasshrugged.com (the "Cultural Update" lecture).

Unless he was a master of villainously smooth insinuation, I don't hear anything like an intention to insult or needle the speaker.

He very likely was getting brusque dismissals when he asked his professors about Rand and was wondering what she thought about all that—maybe looking for some words of encouragement.

I also think that even a card-carrying loyalist like Bob Mayhew understands that she was shooting the messenger on that occasion, and that's why he cut out her declaration, "That was dirty," her statement about "intellectual cheapness" at the Ford Hall Forum, and her initial refusal to respond (which convinced the moderator he'd better move right on to another question).

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 25:04 through 25:26

Q: Miss Rand, in today's political arena, do you regard any man or any woman as a promising figure?

A: Not today. No, I'm sorry, not one.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 25:28 through 26:02

Q: Could you tell us what you're working on now? [Applause]

A: I might be able to tell you about it next year, if I am here then. I had hoped that I might be able to say today, but I am working on something very problematic and very interesting. Ek, you'll hear about it in the newspapers, when and if it comes true. If not, I'll tell you next year.

[she was alluding to an Atlas Shrugged movie or mini-series. It wasn't produced, and she didn't make it to the Ford Hall Forum in1979 or 1980, returning for one last speech in 1981.]

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 29:37 through 30:41

Q: Miss Rand, I had read in a vague newspaper article, and heard it nowhere else, that President Carter signed something that the United Nations gave him: a bill that he is going to try to put through Congress that people won't have any more property rights. Did you hear anything of this?

A: I have not, and that sounds like bad rumor-mongering. It's a little bit too sensational, particularly the story that he got it from the United Nations. It isn't done that way. And as bad as our politicians are, they are not that stupid nor would that do him any good if he signed such a paper. So what? Do you really think the United Nations can deprive us of all property rights? You flatter them. [Laughter]

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1977

Q&A, 0:08 through 2:09

Q: Increasingly, people have been making demands for political change that seem to be against the spirit and letter of the Constitution. For example, the demand for democratic elections and so on, as opposed to the republican form that we set up. They demand swifter change and a swifter use of government as opposed to the slow deliberations built into the Constitution. Carter has recently said he wants government to be more efficient, though he has not said to what ends should it be more efficient. My question is, does this seem to be an effect of the tribalism; that is, to make the system much more easy to manipulate for political purposes? Do we have to destroy the original republic of our Constitution to do this—have a tribalized society? [Ed Hudgins]

A: No, not really. Because the demands to change the Constitution, ehh, particularly in any serious way, are different from the issue of tribalism. That is an issue of philosophical collectivism, of which tribalism is only one—and the most primitive, perhaps the ugliest—manifestation.

Tribalism as such is not easy to manage. Actually, tribalism is a country falling apart, into fighting gangs. And any ambitious executive, uh, which I believe Mr. Carter is, would not like tribalism at all, though, of course, he would play up to it, as every politician does today. But he could not manage it. No man can. It simply means the disintegration of a country. And then, who gains the power? Well, that's to be determined by force, by eternal fighting.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Brant Gaede]

If it wasn't for tribalism not one of us would be here. Yes it is quite primitive although I don't think in the way she thought it was. Her use is very narrow and has a purely contemporary ring to it. I don't think any anthropology was part of her education. It is simply part of the human DNA and has survival value. To be an American, for instance, is to be a member of the American tribe.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Her model for tribalism definitely wasn't anthropological. Except for the group identification, it was the Hobbesian war of all against all. Maybe more to the point, from her own experience, the Russian civil war of 1917-1921.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 26:06 through 27:40

Q: Miss Rand, would you comment on what you see happening with the world's energy and food supply, particularly with the basis of an energy crisis—short term, mid-term, long-term?

A: I don't see anything, or any issue, uhh, except in a return to some form of free enterprise, as fast an, as possible. Ultimately, to come out for, with full, unrestricted, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—which has never yet existed,but at least we have come close to it.

I—uh, thank you [maybe accepting glass of water]—I don't think that, uh, any problem is going to be solved by means of the mixed economy, uh, with a little bit of control and a little bit of freedom. You can't go on forever in that way. There is no way to solve anything, and particularly not energy and not food, either under dictatorship or under a mixed economy. Therefore, either we go back to capitalism or I hope some of my works will be preserved through the Dark Ages that we're going to go through. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 36)

Mayhew attempted to tidy this answer up.

Judging from his comments about hiding copies of her books in caves, Leonard Peikoff has taken her last sentence literally.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 20:36 through 22:55

Q: Miss Rand, in your talking about social phenomena, you didn't speak at all about one of the biggest collectivist movements around—this is the feminist movement—and I'd like to know why haven't said anything about that. Andyou made one quote talking about the use of a minority to accrue power. And it seems to me that the way feminists have used blacks is a way in which feminists have accrued power. Would you comment on this?

A: I am profoundly anti-feminist, to begin with. I have not mentioned them … [Applause] Thank you. I have not mentioned them today, because they did not happen to be included in any my talks here at the Forum, but I have written about it, feminist movement in my magazine, The Objectivist.

Uhh, I am profoundly opposed to it, because it is a phony movement. It is, to begin with, it is Marxist Leftist in origin. You say it's exploiting the black movement—it's exploiting everybody. It wants to eat its cake and have ittoo. It wants independence—pardon? [to moderator]—it wants independence at government help, independence with a gun behind them, independence with tax support for women. Extorted from whom? From men, whose equals they claim to be.

Well, men did not get established with the help of the government, not in this country. And if women want to be equal, and, of course, potentially they are,then they should do it on their own, not as a vicious, parasitical pressure group, which is what they are. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 106)

Mayhew rendered the question as "Could you comment on feminism?" and cut the reference to exploiting the civil rights movement out of the answer as well.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1974

Q&A, Track 3, 5:41 through 6:17

JL: Should a woman worship the metaphysical concepts of masculinity, which she attributes to you in your writings?

A: Uh, that is quite true. I wouldn't put it metaphysically in that form; I'd put it much simpler.

I am a man-worshiper, and my heroines are man-worshipers, and there's only two things I could do on this question: either speak for 10 hours or write a volume, which I, would not convince you, or simply say, to me it's self-evident, and I will do the second.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included