Robert Campbell on denunciation in Randland

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From Robert Campbell:

The intensity and breadth of one's hatreds are not proof of one's nobility.

Ayn Rand had a positive message. Those who take her frequent and fierce denunciations as the most important thing to emulate have failed to grasp it.

I saw this in a post on Solo Passion.

This really hits a nerve.

A few years ago I formally eschewed the constant moral denunciation spirit all too present in the Objectivist subcommunity and taken to the level of caricature on Solo Passion and at times at a few other places online.

I had to. Reason demanded it.

It's like drinking too much alcohol. A little is OK and even good, but if you do too much, you get drunk.

Unfortunately, I have seen that way too much online in our subcommunity.

Robert's quote is like a breath of fresh air. But then, I value production far more than personality cults.

Michael

[anthony]

Michael,

An incisive quote by Robert Campbell - with permission I'd like to use it sometime.

I have posted elsewhere that Objectivism without benevolence is not worth a damn. With such a superior,powerful philosophy, a well-trained O'ist taking on any perceived threat or 'enemy' - especially a "newby"- with denunciatory terms is the moral equivalent of Charles Atlas kicking sand in a 97-lb weakling's face.

Well, you get the picture; such Objectivists make me cross!

I'd like to tell these bullies that only one person earned the right to rush to judgment occasionally on any issue or character, and she's been dead a while.

My personal take on judgment ( that great phrase "courtroom of one's mind" has always been close to me), is that a) there are two sides to the coin, and positive judgment should be emphasised more often i.e., give credit wherever it's due. B) judgment does not always have to be expressed openly, and certainly not immediately. c) it can be made in such a way to explicitly and implicitly recognise that a person can change and grow.

I must admit, to my regret, that I did my own (un)fair share of judging quickly and harshly in my youth; as a result I alienated some fine people, and am now very sensitive on matters of intellectual injustice.

By the way,am I wrong in believing that Justice subsumes good will, tolerance, respect,and even courtesy ?

Tony

[Christopher]

I was having a discussion with my girlfriend about Objectivism last night after we rewatched the Peikoff/O'Reilly interview (bad, bad, bad). My girlfriend said that she could never really accept Objectivism because she believed that it was too selfish (in the petty sense of - I want it, screw everybody else!)

Of course I was immediately moved into a defensive position trying to assert that Objectivism at its best includes caring, being fair, honoring and respecting other individuals. Not all Objectivists practice these values, but

human needs encompass the reciprocation of such behaviors. Objectivism isn't really about what "Objectivists" do, it's more about the actions that are appropriately called for given the basic philosophical premises.

However, her observations were right to a degree: people do use Objectivism in the most moralistically petty sense of asserting dominance over others, of justifying childish selfishness, of stepping on others. Heck, even I find myself becoming unjustly aggressive at times when talking about Objectivist ideas. This is of course not Objectivism, though bullying assertiveness is certainly a common perception associated to Objectivism. We I think who truly appreciate Objectivist teachings seem to grasp that social harmony and positive experiential living can be derived from Objectivist premises (and herein is the true virtue of the teachings)... but others don't see it that way (both in and outside of Objectivism).

Take Michael Moore... his view of Capitalism seems to accurately represent what many (if not most) people's view of Capitalism is: petty selfishness... getting ahead at all costs. Such behaviors are "selfish," but not in the Objectivist's definition of selfish. Yet, how can hatred, malice, and aggression in defense of Objectivist beliefs actually win people over to the idea that selfishness is a virtue? Hatred, malice, and unwarranted aggressiveness are the quintessential virtues of the lowest levels of moral rightousness, and such actions discredit by their very nature what Objectivism is meant to stand for.

[jeffrey smith]

I'll put out a word that might be a good replacement of or at least alternative to "selfishness" (in Rand's sense).

SELFULLNESS.

Think of it as being the reverse of "selflessness" (again in the Randian sense of the word): the person who has fully realized his or her self, the person who possesses himself or herself whole and entire, the person who is himself or herself fully.

Lack of time (and a dose of Percocet) won't allow me to elaborate tonight, but it's something that's been brewing in my head for the last week or so, as a possible term for the character trait which is the focus of Objectivism. Also, I have to figure out how to spell it (Selfullness, selfulness, selffulness?)

One final thought: if you take Rand's words seriously, fulfilling her ideas involves a rigorous spiritual (or at least mental) discipline, examining oneself, one's ideas and actions, and one's responses to the ideas and actions of the people around you, and acting accordingly.

Edited October 1, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Philip Coates]

Jeffrey, I think I like it. You should take Percocet more often.

You did spell it the best of the three ways. And if you change the word, or introduce a new one, people are forced to think about how this concept is different from the one they are familiar with and its baggage.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Tony,

You're welcome to quote me on this subject.

I'm not claiming originality, in any case.

Robert Campbell

[Christopher]

Selfullness.. I like it.

[anthony]

Yes,'Selfullness'.With the adjective of 'selfull' (selful?)- as in 'soulful'; this sounds very cool, and it is self-explanatory. The -fish word is always going to be too loaded it seems. Why has no one thought of this before? On second thoughts, it is probable that Ayn Rand considered, but then rejected it, on the basis that it is evasive, and compromising.

For me it's great!

Christopher, I concur: agression and malice have no place in Objectivism. To add one more word, arrogance ,too. I have noticed that the topic of "Arrogance" raises huge interest on forums, and I've wondered why. It seems that a large number of O'ists feel that 'arrogance' is a virtue, and are trying to establish it as such.

I have argued that it is a pale imitation, or a counterfeit, of the real thing - quiet superiority, certitude and confidence - and even gone as far as 'proving' that arrogance has altruistic undertones.

When, oh when, are we going to grow out of this fearful,self-defensive stage?

[anthony]

....and thank you kindly, Robert.

Tony

[Philip Coates]

> The intensity and breadth of one's hatreds are not proof of one's nobility. Ayn Rand had a positive message. Those who take her frequent and fierce denunciations as the most important thing to emulate have failed to grasp it. [Robert]

I agree. How about actually doing it?

One way to start right now to implement the principle about focusing on the positive is to stop perpetuating all the threads and making posts devoted to what's wrong with Perigo or Peikoff or ARI. Or whoever you dislike. Stop trying to respond to the latest misstatement on Solo P or worrying over and over about whether or not someone misquoted or paraphrased Rand out of bad motives. Stop carrying on snarky little 'movement' or thread vendettas trying to undercut or belittle people. Drop your grudges and write something positive. Write a thoughtful essay, share a value. Stop focusing exclusively on the latest outrage in the daily news. Instead of only criticizing the war on terror or spying, write about how it -should- be conducted in some detail. So people can see a constructive alternative.

Yeah, the world is in bad shape, poorly maintained: Let's build things.

I personally have written about movement flaws and errors. One does have to spend a fraction of one's time identifying negatives. But that should not be perpetual or day in and day out. My preference on this site is to spend much more of my time on, say, the Great Literature thread writing about interesting or beautiful works of art than on the negatives or movement squabbles. But there are only about four people (and one snarky attack dog) who have anything positive to say. What great works have you read? And why? Other positive topics exist: Michael Newberry recently posted a number of lovely paintings.

Others don't too often share their own values and choices and inspirations. (Possibly herebecause they don't want to be slimed by belittling or sarcasm. But other venues can exist.)

But, when the prospect of blood is in the water, most of the traffic goes to the traffic accidents, to the negative threads and focus. Every time there is some gossip, or malfeasance or someone attacks someone else's motives, personality, quirks, or character... people drop everything to make a post or three about it. Or to stand around and gape ...OOOOH ! Something EXCITING!!

Stop looking for feet of clay and start carving in marble that will last through the ages.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Jonathan]

Stop looking for feet of clay and start carving in marble that will last through the ages.

You first, Phil. Many people have told you, over and over again, that you often behave like a condescending schoolmarm. So drop the attitude. Show us how it's done. Focus only on the positive and on ideas rather than on trying to control what other people say and how they say it. Make no more comments on others' methods of expressing themselves. See if you can go a month without playing schoolmarm.

You might also want to address substance when people disagree with you, instead of avoiding it and disappearing from conversations. I know that I'd take you more seriously, and my experiences with you would be more positive, if you were to actually respond to my substantive comments during conversations in which I make points that you obviously hadn't thought of, especially after you've implied that those who disagree with you on an issue haven't studied it properly or deeply enough.

J

[James Heaps-Nelson]

> The intensity and breadth of one's hatreds are not proof of one's nobility. Ayn Rand had a positive message. Those who take her frequent and fierce denunciations as the most important thing to emulate have failed to grasp it. [Robert]

I agree. How about actually doing it?

One way to start right now to implement the principle about focusing on the positive is to stop perpetuating all the threads and making posts devoted to what's wrong with Perigo or Peikoff or ARI. Or whoever you dislike. Stop trying to respond to the latest misstatement on Solo P or worrying over and over about whether or not someone misquoted or paraphrased Rand out of bad motives. Stop carrying on snarky little 'movement' or thread vendettas trying to undercut or belittle people. Drop your grudges and write something positive. Write a thoughtful essay, share a value. Stop focusing exclusively on the latest outrage in the daily news. Instead of only criticizing the war on terror or spying, write about how it -should- be conducted in some detail. So people can see a constructive alternative.

Yeah, the world is in bad shape, poorly maintained: Let's build things.

I personally have written about movement flaws and errors. One does have to spend a fraction of one's time identifying negatives. But that should not be perpetual or day in and day out. My preference on this site is to spend much more of my time on, say, the Great Literature thread writing about interesting or beautiful works of art than on the negatives or movement squabbles. But there are only about four people (and one snarky attack dog) who have anything positive to say. What great works have you read? And why? Other positive topics exist: Michael Newberry recently posted a number of lovely paintings.

Others don't too often share their own values and choices and inspirations. (Possibly herebecause they don't want to be slimed by belittling or sarcasm. But other venues can exist.)

But, when the prospect of blood is in the water, most of the traffic goes to the traffic accidents, to the negative threads and focus. Every time there is some gossip, or malfeasance or someone attacks someone else's motives, personality, quirks, or character... people drop everything to make a post or three about it. Or to stand around and gape ...OOOOH ! Something EXCITING!!

Stop looking for feet of clay and start carving in marble that will last through the ages.

It's the medium, Phil. People like feedback and positive feedback is mostly nonverbal. Also the internet skews toward things people feel most strongly about. Interestingly, facebook although it can be negative trends the other way. I think it's because of the experience sampling format, facebook is pretty shallow though. Moderated lists also work, but they mostly die out because the moderating is tedious and its hard to get an impartial moderator. People only have a short amount of time on the internet, that also is a factor. The main thing is to balance online Objectivist interactions with conferences and local group meetings.

Jim

[Jonathan]

Getting back to this thread's original topic, I see that Robert has added to the discussion over on SOLOP:

Ayn Rand put forward an aesthetic theory. To the extent that she achieved her aims for that theory, aesthetic judgments are objective.

If they are objective, then reasons can and ought to be given for them.

A one-word dictum may be appropriate when you are merely expressing your personal opinion.

Rand claimed to be doing more than that.

In response, Ellen commented:

If it were anyone else but Rand, would all the fuss be made over her delivering a snap-judgment statement about an artist she didn't like, or her being ungenerous to a rival theorist, and especially in a Q and A?

The subtext I hear in the complaints is that Rand should have known that she was taken as a kind of authority figure by her followers which she shouldn't have been taken as, and she should have catered to this inappropriate way of taking her.

Being interested to know why she felt negative toward Parrish -- whom so many Objectivists had assumed she would like -- and why she was negative toward Milton Friedman is one thing, but getting upset about her stating her opinions without elaborating is another and I think grants legitimacy to the idea of her as Vox Auctoritas.

I agree with aspects of what both Robert and Ellen are saying. Like Ellen, I see no reason to get upset about Rand's opinions, and I agree that if it was anyone else who delivered such subjective snap-judgments, there generally wouldn't be much of a fuss. But, as Robert says, Rand put forward an aesthetic theory which aimed to be objective. She often denounced subjectivity, she seemed to believe that her tastes and opinions were objective, and she seemed to place a high degree of importance on ranking artworks that she liked as being "objectively superior" to artworks that she didn't like. I don't know of any other philosophers who placed such a high degree of importance on believing that their subjective opinions were objective, but if I ever discover any, I'll be as critical of their statements as I am of Rand's. In other words, to directly answer Ellen's question, if it were anyone else but Rand making the claim of objectivity, yes, I would be making a "fuss" over his or her statements about artists he or she didn't like.

And there's additional context to my point of view, which involves comparing Rand's views on Parrish and other great artists of whom she was critical with the artists she praised: By any standard that could be called "objective," Parrish, whose work Rand dismissed as "trash," was a great artist, and, by the same standards, Capuletti, whose work Rand praised very highly, was a mediocre artist. In fact, the works of Capuletti's which Rand praised specifically for their alleged technical mastery are, by any objective standard, poor, student-grade work.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the "fuss" over Rand's opinions isn't about being "upset" that Rand gave an opinion without elaborating, but about being interested in exploring the topic of the subjectivity of her aesthetic judgments, as well as the problems that her subjectivity implies about her philosophy of aesthetics.

The "fuss" is also about being amused by some of her followers who also very badly want to believe that their subjective emotional responses to art are "objective" and that their favorite artworks are "objectively superior." Far from being "upset," I'm endlessly amused by Objectivists who imagine that they're going to save the world by emulating Rand in denouncing art that they know nothing about, and in some cases haven't even seen or heard.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Capuletti was not mediocre. Rand did overrate him. He did tend to leave outright errors in some of his work. I could see no reason for a woman whose feet were not actually on the floor or why the large female frontal nude, which I think Peikoff owns, a combo of Rand and an actress, had distracting asymmetrical breasts. I suspect he painted that one to flatter Rand. Generally speaking he made people mere background figures and his work was cold. For a much better genius artist, it's Dali hands down. He did eschew instruction early on and not to his benefit it would seem. He was obviously not a man anyone was going to give technical instruction or unasked for criticism to. Take him or leave him. He was extremely high strung and Ellen Stuttle said he died of a heart attack over 30 years ago.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Capuletti was not mediocre.

Yes he was. He sometimes created work that rose above the level of mediocrity, but generally his work was no better technically than that of average students that I've seen in average college classes. He hadn't mastered a variety of important technical issues, like color theory, perspective, form and foreshortening, etc. I would even rate a few of his paintings as being quite bad by objective technical standards.

Rand did overrate him. He did tend to leave outright errors in some of his work. I could see no reason for a woman whose feet were not actually on the floor or why the large female frontal nude, which I think Peikoff owns, a combo of Rand and an actress, had distracting asymmetrical breasts. I suspect he painted that one to flatter Rand. Generally speaking he made people mere background figures and his work was cold. For a much better genius artist, it's Dali hands down.

I agree that Dali was a much better artist, but I think Rand also probably overrated him. He also had areas in which he lacked control and technical knowledge.

J

[Christopher]

Dali composed a painting for Maxwell Maltz, the founder of Psychocybernetics and a grandfather in the self-help movement. The painting is quite beautiful, showing man becoming greater as he walks towards the sun (and struggling when man is stuck in the shadow of his mind).

It struck me, given other works by Dali, that he probably had his share of internal strife and struggle. Sort of like Beethoven - an artist whose work seems meant to stand above a darker perceived reality. Such struggles are quite beautiful. It's too bad that such struggles, while producing so much beauty in art, might cause so much pain in the artist. I've always looked at this beauty as that of a consciousness devoted to life and love struggling against an unconscious geared towards pain and suffering (likely developed through childhood traumas, etc). Do other see Dali's art like this?

Today, we are lucky! We have psychology, self-help, and communities that help individuals realize the beauty of the world through and through. Will artwork become more free-flowing and devoid of painful struggle in the future?

[Dragonfly]

I agree that Dali was a much better artist, but I think Rand also probably overrated him. He also had areas in which he lacked control and technical knowledge.

Indeed. I saw many of his original works for the first time on an exhibition in Rotterdam in 1970 and I was really struck when I saw how poor his technique was in many of them, especially in the earlier works. Later his technique became more slick, but never very good. I think that Rand considered every (sur)realist painter who had a better technique than her husband as having a "brilliant" technique. Dali's fame is mainly based on the gimmicks he used in his paintings. The same holds for example for René Magritte.

[Philip Coates]

> It's the medium, Phil...the internet skews toward things people feel most strongly about...Moderated lists also work, but they mostly die out because the moderating is tedious and its hard to get an impartial moderator...The main thing is to balance online Objectivist interactions with conferences and local group meetings. [Jim]

Good points. A major reason it's far less vicious at conferences is the attack dogs tend to have their lives so disorganized that they tend not to show up. One of the reasons for negativity on the internet is 'keyboard courage'. It draws people who would get the shit kicked out of them if they said some things to people's faces. And they know that. So they often tend to be sort of brooding and inadequate and then they are liberated behind a computer screen.

These are intelligent people, at least in our universe, so there are many forms: they can use fake humor or joviality, sarcasm and ridicule, "put downs". They can contemptuously denounce the things people love, psychologize about people's motives. They may use name-calling caricature, moral condemnation at a distance, and so on. They can try to smear or impugn the very attempt to hold them to account. (Here's an example of the clever dick type: Someone may claim, sounding very innocent, "But Phil, aren't you being negative right now in this post, instead of positive" - trying to confuse people with that sophistical trick.)

I had a lot of experience with the attack dog types on Solo when I tried to defend Chris S from Diana's smears. (I called them "The Wolfpack" -- I had to take on five or six of them at a time.) Usually they will claim that they are just rendering justice or being truthful. Unlike me.

And in many cases -- unlike Toohey ready to spray the garden hose on anyone well-dressed -- they may actually believe this.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Rereading my last post, in fairness, I do need to tone down my last sentence. It might be read by the unwary to suggest all snarky or put-down or attack dog types are Toohey-esque. That they have self-esteem problems or inferiority issues, are vicious, envious mediocrities. That they like to hurt people.

I think instead many of them are simply oblivious, socially unaware. They don't realize that they are hurting people, disrupting the movement, giving a philosophy they love a bad name.

They think they are clever, emulating Twain or Mencken or the put downs of Churchill or Noel Coward. And they don't see the enormous difference in context. They don't see the difference between those four people and Maureen Dowd for example.

Or they simply feel a burning need to fire away, all guns blazing. And then they put any consequences and implications out of their mind, moving quickly on to another issue.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] why [Capuletti's] large female frontal nude, which I think Peikoff owns, a combo of Rand and an actress, had distracting asymmetrical breasts.

It doesn't have asymmetrical breasts. I have a photo of the painting in my downstairs bedroom. The photo is small, 7-1/2" by 9-1/2" with an inch-and-a-half frame all round. It's more attractive than the pictures of the painting which appear on the web. Although the photo loses the living-marble quality of the flesh in the real painting, its skin tones are glowing. I know you saw the painting at the original show, but I think you've been misled in memory over the years by seeing reproductions on the web. The appearance of asymmetry in the breast size is because of the angle of the shadows. The left breast (right side looking at the painting) is darkly shadowed. The breasts, however, aren't disproportional in size.

Leonard Peikoff owned the painting at least as of 10 or so years ago, when there was a picture of him in his living room on the front of a LFB book catalog. The painting was on the wall behind. I haven't heard any news of his selling it, so I assume he still has it.

I would love to have it. That and another one which was at the same show: The composition of the other one looks based on an imagined diagonal across from upper right to lower left. A woman in the lower right "triangle" is stretched on the stone of a courtyard, naked, face down, sensuously pressed against the stone. A Spanish-style house occupies the upper left "triangle" (edging over the imagined diagonal; the geometry I'm describing is approximate). On a balcony at the top of a stairs, a woman, fully clad and darkly malevolent of expression (the standard meaning of "malevolent") is looking down on the woman in the courtyard. Thinking what? Much to conjure as to possible stories behind the scene. An astrolabe is in the front right corner.

Ellen

Edited October 2, 2009 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Quoting from a post of Robert's on a discussion on SOLO:

[....] A one-word dictum may be appropriate when you are merely expressing your personal opinion.

Rand claimed to be doing more than that.

No, she didn't. Not in that Parrish quip. She was asked her personal opinion; she gave it.

[Rand] seemed to believe that her tastes and opinions were objective, and she seemed to place a high degree of importance on ranking artworks that she liked as being "objectively superior" to artworks that she didn't like.

I know she ~seemed~ to you pretty much to equate rankings of excellence with her particular likes. She didn't seem to me to do that, and I heard a great deal more about details of her opinions and tastes than you were there to hear. One thing, you keep confusing judgments of aesthetic worth and judgments of moral worth. Rand made both types of judgments. She considered her judgments of merit, of both types, objective, but her merit judgments and her personal tastes didn't line up the way you think they did. For example, she was under no illusions that her tiddlywink music held a candle in technical greatness to Beethoven. She called Rembrandt, whose work she mostly hated, a great master. She didn't think that the works of Vermeer which she disliked were any worse technically than the ones she did like. She considered Isak Dinesen the greatest stylist writing at the time of her (Rand's) conversations with John Hospers in '60-'62, but thought that Dinesen had a bad sense of life. She loathed Tolstoy's work but ranked him as a great writer. She understood the difference between her personal tastes and aesthetic judgment and considered personal liking and aesthetic judgment different dimensions. Where she tended to lose the distinction was on judgment of moral worth, but even there she didn't consider her liking an art work equivalent to its having a good sense of life and vice versa -- an example which is famous (infamous) in some circles, her dislike of "The Blue Danube" and similar Vienese fare.

Ellen

[Dragonfly]

Oh come on, Rand didn't say "I don't like Parrish" or even "I hate Parrish", which would imply that according to her own theory Parrish still could be a master in his trade, while she didn't like his subjects or his "sense of life". No, she called it trash, and that is as unequivocal a condemnation as you can get, not only a dislike of style or subject, but also of his technical skill. Rand claims that an objective judgment of art work is possible, so one can't cover up her gaffe here by trying to claim that it was "just her personal opinion", she cannot have her cake and eat it too.

[Philip Coates]

Ellen, thanks for the very detailed post with a number of examples from both art and literature. I also remember Rand making the distinctions you mention, although I don't remember offhand in which book or essay.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Rendering Full and Proportionate Justice to Ayn Rand

> Rand didn't say "I don't like Parrish" or even "I hate Parrish"...No, she called it trash,

Dragonfly, cut her some slack for blurting out a gut reaction in a Q&A period. It sometimes seems to me that people cherry pick for bad answers or emotional ejaculations out of all the careful, thoughtful responses she ever gave over all those years.

In addition to a certain injustice or feet of clay focus [the fundamental issue], that has the additionally negative result [ a secondary, but nonetheless very important practical issue] of feeding the left and her christian critics on the right who are looking for -anything- to trumpet how bad a thinker she is, an emotionalist, loud, shrieking woman who has nothing to say, is a right wing extremist and should not be read.

Find something of Rand's to praise, people!! Be as concerned with righting the injustices done to her and to her brilliant and life-saving ideas as you are -- constantly, time after time, post after post, decade after decade -- in finding a scab or a nit to pick about her anger or abruptness.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is this the painting?

There is a good article on Capuletti on Ted Keer's fascinating blog.

Michael