The Rewrite Squad

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1977

Q&A, 21:13 through 23:08

Q: Miss Rand, do you think that the pressure put on world resources by a rapidly expanding population is making it harder to convince people that Objectivism or capitalism is probably in their best interest?

A: I don't see any connection. I mean, if Objectivism is true for one baby infant, it will be true for a million of them. And it is the only way in which mankind can survive. The scarcer the resources, the more freedom you need. You need the ingenuity of the intelligent man to make discoveries and improve everyone's standard of living.

But I don't believe that whole story about shrinking resources. They are shrinking because freedom is shrinking. In a free … [Applause] In a free economy, if any particular resource became scarce, long before we would feel the shortage there would be several substitute elements or goods invented to take its place. And also in a free economy, you would not use your knowledge and technology to build oil refineries and oil wells for tribal savages and then permit them to nationalize it and hold you up. [Applause]

The Objectivist Calendar #9 (September 1977), p. 2

No, I don't. I don't see any connection between these two issues. If Objectivism is true for one infant, it will be true for a million of them. If capitalism is the only system that enables mankind to survive, then the scarcer the resources the more freedom you need, and the more you need the ingenuity of the intelligent man to make discoveries and thus improve everyone's standard of living. But I don't believe that whole story about shrinking resources. They are shrinking because freedom is shrinking. In a free economy, if any particular resource became scarce, long before we would feel the shortage there would be several different substitutes invented to take its place. Also, in a free economy, you would not use your knowledge and technology to build oil wells for tribal savages, and then permit them to nationalize your property and hold you up for… [Miss Rand's last word was drowned out by applause, but the word was: ransom. Ed.]

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 35-36)

Mayhew reproduces Rand's edited version, minus the note about the final word.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1977

Q&A

This is a "lost" answer, not on the commercially available recording.

Edited by Rand in The Objectivist Calendar #9 (September 1977), p. 2

Q: Do you consider man's altering of nature to be natural?

A: Well, what do you think man is? Outside of nature? A supernatural being? Of course, man is a natural being and the essential attribute of man's nature is his mind, a faculty that enables him to understand nature and to use it for his own advantage, which is his only way of survival. [Man does not "alter" nature—he merely rearranges its elements to serve his own purposes.]

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 31-32)

Mayhew reproduces Rand's edited version, dropping the brackets around the sentence she had added.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1977

Q&A

The second "lost" answer.

The Objectivist Calendar #10 (October 1977), p. 2:

Q: For those who seek a career as a writer in the present world, what studies or readings do you recommend in preparation? And do you foresee a greater prospect of success in writing political or other essays rather than novels?

A: First, I would recommend, above all, that you never take any classes in writing. You will not learn anything that way. Second, there can be no such thing as a rule establishing a greater likelihood of success in writing fiction or nonfiction. Your approach to these questions is all wrong. If you want to be a writer, ask yourself first of all what you want to say. That will determine in what form you will say it —whether it's fiction or nonfiction. The next question to ask yourself is: why do I think that people will be interested in hearing this? Do I have something new to say? Is what I want to say important and, if so, why? Or am I just planning a rehash of what everybody has heard millions of times before? If you can answer these questions properly, you're on your way to becoming a writer. These are the first steps. Then you must develop your own understanding of what you regard as good writing or bad writing. You do it by identifying the quality of the books you read. Whenever you like something, ask yourself, if it's good — why? Whenever you don't like something, ask yourself, if it's bad — why? In this way you will acquire a set of principles of writing. But you have to be the author of that set. You have to understand it and it has to be rational, i.e., you have to have reasons for the answers you give yourself and the principles you adopt.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 220-221)

Mayhew almost reproduces Rand's edited version. He inserts a "properly" in front of "fiction or nonfiction." He goes to a second paragraph after "These are the first steps." And he changes the "i.e." in her last sentence to "that is."

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 5:10 through 5:37

Q: Miss Rand, what is the most dangerous philosophical concept that a man could follow?

A: A man could follow? A single concept? The … uh… Actually, if I have to make a choice, I would say irrationalism, because it involves everything else.

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

A single concept? If I have to make a choice, I would say irrationalism, because it involves everything else.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 165)

Mayhew reproduced Rand's lightly edited version.

[Chris Grieb]

Ford Hall Forum 1978

Q&A, 5:10 through 5:37

Q: Miss Rand, what is the most dangerous philosophical concept that a man could follow?

A: A man could follow? A single concept? The … uh… Actually, if I have to make a choice, I would say irrationalism, because it involves everything else.

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

A single concept? If I have to make a choice, I would say irrationalism, because it involves everything else.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 165)

Mayhew reproduced Rand's lightly edited version.

I find Mayhew's editing on this item at an acceptable level.

[Robert Campbell]

So now all 13 answers have been accounted for that Rand edited herself and placed in The Objectivist Calendar.

Three big ones in the batch: Israel/Kissinger/Solzhenitsyn 1976, Roots 1977, and Nazis in Skokie 1978.

The rest not so big. Some so small I hadn't considered posting them on this thread before.

We've learned that when answers got longer, it's because Rand, not Mayhew, added to them.

We've also learned that Rand identified her additions as such, and Mayhew didn't.

Other criticisms of Mayhew's selection and editing procedures remain unaffected.

And we're up to 148 comparisons now (not counting the two "lost" answers from 1977, where there's nothing available to compare them to).

A few more to go, from the 1976 lectures, and my contributions to this thread will be sharply diminishing—to the relief of some participants, I'm sure.

Robert Campbell

[Backlighting]

Robert "A few more to go, from the 1976 lectures, and my contributions to this thread will be sharply diminishing—to the relief of some participants, I'm sure"

I'm sure I speak for many here. Your work is very much appreciated. I found this thread the most interesting on this site. Thank you.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; I for one will miss this thread. You have done some great work and I thank you.

I wish there were some place where I could return "Answers" to Mayhew and ask for my money back.

[9thdoctor]

A few more to go, from the 1976 lectures, and my contributions to this thread will be sharply diminishing—to the relief of some participants, I'm sure.

The actual comparing does get tedious, but reviewing the material is interesting enough by itself. I’ve enjoyed it.

One thing I’ve noticed is that all the edits date from 1968 onward. I remember she was on fire for the Q&A after the Faith and Force lecture (1962?), and there are other surviving recordings pre-68. Did Mayhew leave those ones alone, or not include them?

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Depends on the lecture.

Mayhew uses a version of "Faith and Force" from Purdue University, April 1961. If I can get that one on CD, I'll give it a listen.

Mayhew runs answers from Ford Hall Forum in 1966 and 1967. Some of these look very interesting, but the Q&As from these lectures are not available on recordings. (If there were Q&As at her earlier Ford Hall Forum appearances, they must have been unrecorded, or the recordings lost; Mayhew doesn't include anything from them.)

I made an inquiry at the Ayn Rand Archives about the Ford Hall Forum Q&As from 1966, 1967, and 1970 (unavailable on recordings; neither is the speech from 1970), and 1973 and 1977 (about half of the Q&A periods is missing from the available recordings).

Haven't heard back. Wonder whether I will.

Robert Campbell

Chris and Vegas,

Thank you for your support. I knew when I started it that this kind of thread wouldn't be to everyone's taste. As long as you and a few others are getting something out of it, it's worth doing in this venue. (I've been building and keeping my own archives of transcriptions and comparisons for research purposes. Lots more in them that would be a sure-fire snooze here )

RC

[DavidMcK]

I have to second (or third or fourth) my appreciation of this thread. I find the comparisons tedious also so I just skip to the bottom line usually, but there is much material in here that is new. I find it disturbing that the hardliners ignore so much in Rand that is suggestive of a non-interventionist foreign policy as well as her utter contempt of conservatives. Somehow Objectivism has resolved into an almost Christian Conservative movement and there was much in here that attacks that point of view from the grave. This has been a most interesting thread and many thanks.

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 10 Q&A

CD 2, track 6, 2:26 through 4:02

Now, another question, somewhat on the same order:

When a person collects unemployment benefits, it is charged against some particular ex-employer whose rate of com, compulsory contribution to the state then automatically increases. Does Objectivism view the collection of unemployment benefits the same as receiving scholarships?

Yes, of course. Because no matter what it does to your employer, if you're out of work in a situation like today, when it's government controls that create unemployment, why should you protect your employer—and starve? There cannot be an individual martyrdom or individual responsibility for something which is the government's fault. In any situation where the government is creating a hardship or pushing you into a position of martyrdom, you are morally justified to take advantage of whichever opening or whichever money they offer you, provided only that you don't spread the ideas and don't help the spread of the kind of ideas which created the trouble. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 124)

Yes. Government controls create unemployment. No matter what happens to your employer, if you are out of work today, why should you protect him and starve?

Mayhew took it upon himself to recast Rand's second and third sentences.

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 10 Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 2:01 through 11:46

Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I will start with the question I was to answer last time but did not have time. Uhh, I quote:

Apart from basic moral premises, is it really ever proper to talk about an Objectivist position on an issue? Shouldn't one's own mind and reasoning, err, reasoning process be the sole determinant of one's stand on any given issue? (Time and again, throughout this course, you have referred to the Objectivist position on this, um, or that.)

Yes, Dr. Peikoff has so referred, because he is a rational person, an honest person, and a philosopher—which is my way of saying that this is not an honest question.

I have no idea what the questioner thinks is a basic moral premise. If he thinks "A is A" would be one, "thou shalt not steal," and "try to be honest but not all the time," well, that's not enough for basic premises. The actual basic premises of, of our philosophy are the axioms. Between philosophical axioms and the actual actions of your own life, there is so enormous a distance, so many issues and sub-issues, so many derivative questions and consequences, that anyone who thinks that his own mind is going to be determinant of those issues without the help of principles cannot really be interested in principles or in philosophy—nor, as a matter of fact, in his own mind. What he's interested in is his own whims.

Because you see, objective, rational positions—which means: principles and applied principles—are not a violation on anyone's mind, they are a help. If they are objective, if it is proved to you why a certain course of action is right and according to what basic premises, then your own mind is saved an awful lot of time. It is much easier to consider a case presented to you and decide whether it's right or wrong, than to decide it by yourself from scratch. This is the function of philosophy, to save you time.

But if this questioner thinks his own mind should decide, the sole determinant of one's stand on any given issue, I will ask him: By what standard? And by what right? Right is a moral—i.e., philosophical—concept. Why should his own mind be the sole determinant? Is he equipped to do it? No, he's not. He would have to be a professional philosopher, and then, maybe, in certain young middle age, he would begin to be qualified, not until then. By "qualified," I mean: to pass judgment on issues strictly on the strength of his own mind alone, unaided. Theh, he would have to go to the pre-Socratic philosophers, and I'm sure at least this questioner is not qualified to do that.

In other words, anyone is free to originate his own philosophy, if he has the ability to do it; but then he has to start from scratch. He has to start on his, defining moral premises and then be able objectively to demonstrate that his system is right. And then, whether anyone wants to practice it or not, he can practice it on his own; and then his own mind is the sole determinant from scratch. Only I don't know of any human being who would even theoretically be able to do that.

The alternative to that is to adopt a few slogans or a few commandments like religious commandments and say, "That's enough of a base, and the rest I decide by whim."

Now, the real error that this, ih, questioner makes, the serious error now, is this: he does not differentiate between principle and concrete action. Because all that philosophy can give you is principles, and if he's talking about positions or an issue—well, ehh, anything you can call an issue is a matter of principles. And there you need a philosophy to tell you how to solve that issue or that question. But that's still an abstract level.

What you really need, and what philosophy doesn't give you, is how to apply those principles, the basic ones and the derivative ones and the whole philosophical structure, to the events and the choices of your own life. It is in regard to concretes that your mind is the sole determinant of what you do, and nobody can help you or should help you with that. That is where your own mind has to decide how to apply the principles you have accepted—or maybe some of them you have devised yourself—in either case, how to apply principles to the concrete problems of your life. When, in a given dilemma, uh, are you going to break moral principles which you have accepted? Or are you going to be faithful to, to them? Of what do the moral principles consist in this particular given case, in your particular problem? What is the right course to take according to the basic principles and positions of the philosophy you have accepted?

That's what your mind has to do, not devise positions on an issue. An issue is too broad for that. What side of an issue you will take, that's up to you; but what is the right side and how to approach the issue, that's up to a philosopher to tell you. You may agree or not, but you need the guidance of a principle…

I just want to mention the exact opposite error. It's two sides of a strange, ehh, mentality—not strange, it simply shows no proper understanding of the dimensions, the nature, and the place of philosophy. The opposite to this is questions where people ask us nar, the narrowest possible concrete, like, "What is the Objectivist position on the latest movie that's just been released" Well, there can be no Objectivist or any other philosophy's position on a movie. You may criticize it, you may indicate certain philosophical pluses or minuses; but there can be no Objectivist position on a movie. However, there can be an Objectivist position on an issue, such as Romanticism versus Naturalism. Now, that's an aesthetic issue, and there philosophy speaks, not your own sole mind, devoid of any principles. It's precisely the people who don't understand principles who, on another occasion or a different context, are going to ask for Objectivist positions on concretes, where there can be no specific philosophical position.

So, in conclusion, just to sum up: remember, philosophy deals with broad abstractions, it deals with principles, which means: a formulation of a truth on which other truth depends. Therefore, something which underlies other conclusions, other, uhh, knowledge, other developments…that's a principle. Philosophy deals with that, and it's a philosopher's job to provide you with the principles. It is your exclusive job to apply those principles, to practice, in your own life; because in reality, only concretes exist; only the concrete events of your life exist and the lives of others. But philosophy is the guide that will save you the time and, in some cases, more than time, because not everyone can take the time to be a philosopher. Philosophy will foreshorten for you the terribly complex and difficult problem of knowing what to do in complex situations. Philosophy is the guide, but you are the traveler. That is what you have to remember when in doubt about what is or is not the province of philosophy.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 143-145)

Philosophy is the guide; you are the traveler. Remember this whenever you're in doubt about what is or is not a philosophic problem.

Looking over Mayhew's final two sentences, I wonder whether Rand ever used "philosophic" as an adjective. And in the final sentence, she said "province," not "problem."

Mayhew also cut Rand's sentence: "Only I don't know of any human being who would even theoretically be able to do that."

I'm more interested here in an issue unrelated to transcription or editing. Doesn't this discussion reveal a need in Rand's philosophy for a notion of phronêsis or practical wisdom?

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know why Rand had this need to attack the questioner. She did it again and again. This is why young people were frequently afraid of her and put their questions in writing if they were presumptuous enough even to ask any. Let's accept the premise it was a dishonest question: you still end up with a general sense of fear in what should be an educational context. She herself, of course, had been attacked by so many and had so many enemies, acknowledged or not.

--Brant

Edited April 5, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[9thdoctor]

Mayhew uses a version of "Faith and Force" from Purdue University, April 1961. If I can get that one on CD, I'll give it a listen.

I just played the beginning of the Q&A from this, it's definitely the same as what I have on an old cassette somewhere:

http://atlasshrugged.com/ayn-rand-works/faith-and-force.html

Apart from basic moral premises, is it really ever proper to talk about an Objectivist position on an issue?

How she pulled all of that out of this question, assuming what’s in bold is all there was to it, I mean jeez, it’s like a Sherlock Holmes parody.

[jeffrey smith]

In other words, anyone is free to originate his own philosophy, if he has the ability to do it; but then he has to start from scratch. He has to start on his, defining moral premises and then be able objectively to demonstrate that his system is right. And then, whether anyone wants to practice it or not, he can practice it on his own; and then his own mind is the sole determinant from scratch. Only I don't know of any human being who would even theoretically be able to do that.

Including someone known as Ayn Rand, I assume. Is that why Mayhew left that sentence out of his version?

Jeffrey S.

[Brant Gaede]

In other words, anyone is free to originate his own philosophy, if he has the ability to do it; but then he has to start from scratch. He has to start on his, defining moral premises and then be able objectively to demonstrate that his system is right. And then, whether anyone wants to practice it or not, he can practice it on his own; and then his own mind is the sole determinant from scratch. Only I don't know of any human being who would even theoretically be able to do that.

Including someone known as Ayn Rand, I assume. Is that why Mayhew left that sentence out of his version?

Jeffrey S.

All she's saying is you aren't allowed to stand on my shoulders, never mind whose I'm standing on.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Thanks. I'll listen to that "Faith and Force" recording.

The questions after Peikoff's lectures were submitted in writing (with rare exceptions) and normally read out loud in their entirety (I know of one case where Rand was annoyed at something in the question and paraphrased it instead). So what you see in bold is the whole thing.

Brant,

Imagine sitting in a hotel conference room chair, half-way back in the hall, and hearing Miss Rand declare your question to be dishonest. There weren't a whole lot of Rand detractors or skeptics ponying up to take this course.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Only I don't know of any human being who would even theoretically be able to do that.

Including someone known as Ayn Rand, I assume. Is that why Mayhew left that sentence out of his version?

Jeffrey,

I haven't the leaping ability of Evel Knievel, but, yes, that seems to be the explanation.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 11 Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 13:40 through 14:58

In The Romantic Manifesto introduction, you state that "it is impossible for young people to grasp the reality of man's higher potential and what scale of achievement it had reached in a rational or semi-rational culture." Is this true for all young people? Can reading about the past, or reading a novel such as Atlas Shrugged, provide that sort of grasp of reality?

Now, I meant this particular thing in regard to the reality of a culture, of living in a culture, the daily reality, which is almost incommunicable. Some novels can communicate it, but it's not the equivalent of actually living in such a culture. As to: can a novel such as Atlas Shrugged provide it, uk, yeah, you have to omit Atlas Shrugged from this consideration, because one always omits the role of one's own work in discussions such as that one. If I'm discussing the state of the culture, I'm not going to say, "It is rotten, depraved, degraded; but of course, remember: my novels are different." That is not my function to do that. It's yours.

CD 3, track 1, 0:00 through 0:24

So, whenever you read me saying that something is so in today's culture or today's philosophy, remember that I am omitting my own works, because I, in that sense, am the observer and not that which is observed.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 195)

Mayhew cuts the final sentence about Ayn Rand as an observer of The Culture.

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 11 Q&A

CD 3, track 1, 3:17 through 4:29

Now You said that a work of art is judged according to the nature of art, that is, a projection of the artist's sense of life. For evaluating the greatness of a work of art, doesn't the, the particular sense of life portrayed hold my aesth, any aesthetic weight? For example, isn't a work of art that inspires a rational man to achieve rational values greater than a work of art that brilliantly illustrates an improper sense of life?

Yes, if their aesthetic means are approximately equal. You cannot here measure to an inch or half an ounce, uh, who is a better stylist. But if we assume, just as a principle, that there is two artists who are equally good in their style, in their how, in the means, but one presents something great and inspiring and the other one something bitter and malevolent, then the first one would be greater, yes. But you'd have to judge them aesthetically first.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 183-184)

Mayhew replaces a characteristic Randian use of "approximately" with "roughly," and "you'd have to" with "you must." What's the point of either substitution?

[jeffrey smith]

Mayhew cuts the final sentence about Ayn Rand as an observer of The Culture.

And thereby makes Rand seem nastier. Mayhew's cut makes it seem that Rand was implying [instructing her disciples?] that she was setting herself apart on the grounds of moral superiority to contemporary culture. Rand's actual words imply (as I read them) that she was setting herself apart from contemporary culture simply because she felt she could not judge her own work impartially--IOW, that she was the one person in the world who would be unable to assert that her work was morally superior to contemporary culture: a vastly different, much less egotistical version from Mayhew's.

This isn't the only time that Rand's actual words show her to be far less of an ideologue, less inclined to delineate things in monochromatic terms of black vs white, than the Authorized Hagiographies would make her out to be. Despite the actual nastinesses scattered through her responses, I've found much to respect and think on in this material, and am coming away liking her (as a person) more than I did before. Robert, I'd like to thank you for your tremendous work in letting us see Rand's ipse dixits.

Jeffrey S.

[jeffrey smith]

[Mayhew replaces a characteristic Randian use of "approximately" with "roughly," and "you'd have to" with "you must." What's the point of either substitution?]

To my ear, Mayhew's versions flow a little more smoothly than Rand's actual words. Of course, since that is an alleged transcript of her actual words, how the words flow should not have entered into consideration.

And it doesn't explain why he dropped the phrase "half an ounce" in Rand's reference to comparing artistic styles.

Jeffrey S.

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

I don't think it's always possible to function as an external observer of your own culture.

But Rand's statement about observer vs. observed does put her commentary on "The Culture" in a less egotistical, less moralizing light.

A lone sentence here, a turn of phrase not quite accurately rendered there, often make all the difference in appreciating what she said.

And an important message of both The Passion of Ayn Rand and Goddess of the Market is that Rand, in her later years after the horrible reviews of Atlas Shrugged, never fully realized the cultural impact that she had been having.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 12 Q&A

CD 2, track 3, 9:14 through 10:12

Now, somebody here sent me two, unnh, Xeroxed, I guess, copies of the two Kipling poems which I said I liked: "When Earth's Last Picture is Painted," and "If," and the question is: Miss Rand, please read and tell us what these poems mean to you.

I specifically said I do not discuss poetry. I would be even less able to read poetry. And I, rrr, as I've stated, I think in "Basic Principles of Literature," poetry is a combination of two arts—uhh, it's literature in part, and it's music. Rhythm and rhyme are the essence of poetry as much as the thought expressed, on equal terms, and you can't begin to discuss, uhh, that. At least, I have no desire to.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 219)

Could you say something about your views on poetry?

Poetry is a combination of two arts: literature and music. Rhythm and rhyme, and the thought expressed, are the essence of poetry.

Mayhew often takes excerpts from the Q&A following Peikoff's 1976 lectures, writing new questions to fit them.