The Rewrite Squad

[Robert Campbell]

Just for Brant ( )I'm going to post a couple more items where Rand speaks on behalf of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

These are both from Ford Hall Forum 1981. After these, the supply is just about exhausted; the only other late Q&A session that I know to have been recorded is the one that followed Lecture 1 of Leonard Peikoff's "Objective Communication" course in 1980.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 4, 5:21 through 7:09

Moderator: If the United States and the Soviet Union are able to destroy the world some 8 or 10 times over, why do we need to spend more money on defense?

A: First of all, because, with the discoveries of science, nn, nuclear weapons, like any other kind of weapons, become obsolete very fast.

Second, because so long as Russia is having new inventions and manufacturing new weapons, we dare not—and I mean it—dare not stay behind. We should be ahead, as we were originally. One of the real historical crimes of this country's governments is that they allowed our superiority to deteriorate. But we can't complain about that now; we have to do something to correct it. So long as you have a threat of the kind as, that Russia represents, and nuclear weapons—whose secret, incidentally, was stolen from us—uh, in their possession, we have to ek, expand our ability to 20 times over, and I would add something more:

I would say, I hope they blow up the world, rather than surrender it to Russia! [Lots of applause]

Thank you. Thank you very, very much for this. Now that was an American response. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 88-89)

First, because of scientific discoveries, nuclear weapons (like other kinds of weapons) quickly become obsolete. Second, so long as Russia is manufacturing new weapons, we dare not stay behind. We should be ahead, as we were originally. One of the historic crimes of this country's governments is that they allowed our superiority to deteriorate. But we can't complain about that now; we must correct it. So long as there is the kind of threat that Russia represents, we must extend our ability twenty times over. Finally, I'd rather we blow up the whole world than surrender it to Russia.

Mayhew drains out a lot of vehemence. Whoever did the transcription misheard "expand" (given a very Russian pronunciation by Rand) as "extend." Mayhew also failed to realize that "20 times over" is a degree of nuclear overkill.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 5, 5:56 through 6:52

Q: The questioner, uh, says that in the light of your absolute refusal to surrender to Soviet Russia, is there not a way for intermediate surrender before the end of the world?

A: Well there might be—if there were an intermediate state of pregnancy, an intermediate immorality, an intermediate irrationality. In all the basic and important and crucial issues, there are no intermediates. That's why you have to stand with me and Aristotle saying it's either/or. And I, uh, uh, I apologize for the presumption: It's Aristotle and me. [Laughter, applause] Thank you. Thank you.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 89)

There might be, if there were an intermediate state of pregnancy, an intermediate immorality, an intermediate irrationality. In all basic and crucial issues, there are no intermediates. You must stand with Aristotle and me and say: It's either/or.

[Brant Gaede]

If Objectivism is what Miss Rand spoke and wrote in her lifetime, then all this Mayhewing isn't Objectivism.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Jeez, Bob...that guy isn't an editor, he's a historical revisionist. He should work for the FCC, maybe over in Standards and Practices. I keep thinking of the line from that old Star Trek episode-- "Must...sterilize."

Edited May 2, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A: ... Dominique's error is the error from which very many good people suffer, only not quite in so extreme a form. She was so devoted to values; she was an independent individualist; she had a very clear view of what she considered the ideal; only, she didn't think that the ideal is possible.

Robert,

I have always had difficulty with this attitude of Rand's, although it has been underground in my mind until recently. I wonder, who are these "very many good people" and when did Rand meet them?

My trouble is that I never met anyone like that in real life. Not even the people who, according to Rand, have this malady in lesser intensity, so they do not pursue something they believe is good because, ultimately, they believe the universe is bad.

What I have encountered, as a general rule, is a lot of people who do not pursue great ideas because they are insecure. Either they don't believe they have the capacity to pull it off, or it goes deeper and they are scared without knowing why. I have met a lot of really shy people who do not pursue their dreams because they don't know how to interact with people in general and they need them to get values--and they need approval when times get tough so they can keep going (like we all do) and they don't know what to say or do to get it. So they fade into the background and don't make waves. I have also encountered a lot of really lazy people who think something is good, but won't pursue it because it takes some work.

I could go on, but the point is that I don't believe in Rand's Dominique premise as a true reflection of how man's mind exists. It was a good shot by Rand since it was very clever, but I hold it was a misfire.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I've also never encountered anyone I could reasonably understand to be operating on a "Dominique premise."

I don't think acting as through the universe is receptive to your efforts or resistant to them is fundamental to anyone's goal or value structure. The benevolent vs. malevolent universe opposition in Rand's thinking is supposed to be metaphysical, but it is nothing to do with entities, identities, attributes, and causes; it's a highly derivative normative notion accorded metaphysical status for aesthetic purposes.

And the "Dominique premise" is a Romantic conceit, albeit one that Rand made good use of in The Fountainhead.

You could call it an extreme way of stylizing a human life.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

If Dominique was Ayn Rand in a "bad mood," then her behavior was actually that of a depressive who had repressed a lot of anger all sublimated into a philosophical explanation and another way of going "on strike"--a vitally important theme in the author's work and life. Rand was obviously down in the dumps when she wrote "The Simplest Thing In the World" and suffered one admitted depressive episode when writing "The Fountainhead" when Frank spent the whole night talking her down from it earning him the dedication to the novel since he had "saved" it. A lot of depression is simply anger repression. Repression, as opposed to suppression, is a way to obliviate the feeling and the energy required is exhausting. Depression can lead to suicide with the suicide unaware of his actual motivation, BUT HE NEEDS AN AUDIENCE! An audience to get back at, to suffuse with regret and guilt. This is not the same as killing oneself because of terrible physical pain and debility. I speculate that Rand had built repressive tracks in her mind made deeper over time by habit and that they were pushed aside by the success of "The Fountainhead" but were reverted to when it became apparent that the success of "Atlas Shrugged" was going to be of a different public order. Depression can also control other people in at least a de facto way. I've no idea, though, if that's an actual motivation of any depressive qua depression. It was never mine as a boy and young teenager.

Dominique doing self destructive things--as with her crazy marriages to Keating and Wynand--is actually expressing herself as a possible suicide, but the unreality is the lack of a need for an audience unless you count Roark.

--Brant

Edited May 2, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[DavidMcK]

Interesting take on Dominique Brant, and re-read the bomb scene with reference to Dominique in the car cutting herself with glass almost to the point of killing herself.

[Backlighting]

Thanks Robert for your time & effort in creating this thread!

[Brant Gaede]

Interesting take on Dominique Brant, and re-read the bomb scene with reference to Dominique in the car cutting herself with glass almost to the point of killing herself.

Oh, I think she just got carried away there, but I don't have time to reread it right now. In any case, by the author's lights, Dominique was not suicidal. And I certainly don't think Rand ever was either.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Another relatively early recorded Q&A that I've now been able to listen to came after a radio broadcast of "The Objectivist Ethics" (in an abridged version). There are 36 minutes of exchanges between Rand and the announcer on issues pertaining to ethics.

The CD with her lecture doesn't sound too bad. By contrast, the second CD with the Q&A suffers from heavily distorted voices, occasional fades or dropouts, and intrusive noises of the lightning-zap and table-saw-whine variety. It appears to have been recorded off somebody's table radio.

I've done the best I could with it, but some passages are really difficult to decrypt. I think the answers are interesting enough to make the exercise worthwhile.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Objectivist Ethics (radio version) 1962

Q&A, CD 2, Track 1, 0:05 through 6:53

Q: This man writes me a letter, a long letter, which includes the following questions: Miss Rand, you've said the basis for the Objectivist ethics is man's need for his continued existence. Aren't you in fact assuming that men want to strive for the continued existence of mankind? Could men not choose to neglect their own survival? The basic question is: When a man can live his own life, uh, without contributing toward the survival of mankind, why should he be concerned with its survival?

A second question, from this same listener: Isn't it true that men will always be basically irrational and will always seek and receive happiness from what is irrational?

And, finally, he asks: Since art is not based on reason, do you reject it? What is its place in Objectivism?

A: Ah, to begin with, uh, this questioner has obviously not listened very carefully to my presentation of the Objectivist ethics. Because, whichever I meant, the last thing in the world I would have meant is that my ethics are based on some kind of need for the continued, euh, survival or existence of mankind. This is a very serious confusion, and what is interesting about this question is the fact that the questioner apparently is so thoroughly on a collectivist premise that when he hears a presentation of a code of ethics for man, he assumes automatically that this means a collective, a race, mankind.

(Sighs) What I was speaking about was the rational requirements for a man's survival, for the survival of every individual man qua man. That does not mean the collective survival of mankind as a standard or a consideration in moral questions. It meant that which is necessary for the survival for every member of the human species so long as he is human and lives up to his nature. Therefore, no such question as what will contribute to the survival of mankind enters into the question of morality. I will only add that mankind is a collective noun and means only the total sum of existing human beings. There is no such separate entity as mankind. Therefore, when a man lives his own life properly, that is the only contribution to the life of mankind that he can make. Anything else means the old collectivism again. There is nothing that a man has to do for mankind. Mankind is himself and other men. And what men have to be concerned with is their proper, rational survival—and they cannot survive without a code of ethics.

When the questioner here says "Since man can live his own life without contributing to the survival of mankind, why should he be concerned?," but the point in my presentation which he missed is the fact that it's man as an individual that cannot survive without a code of ethics and that the Objectivist ethics is intended to show individual men what is the proper way for each of them to survive. And therefore if it is proper for the individual it will also be proper for mankind as a whole. But it is not mankind as a whole, it is not the collective, that is here the goal or the standard of value. The standard of value is man's life, meaning every man, and the purpose is each man's individual life. Now that's the first part of the question.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 108)

The questioner is so thoroughly on a collectivist premise that when he hears a pro-man moral code, he assumes it must refer to a collective: mankind.

Mayhew compresses four paragraphs down to two. And if he thinks Rand said "pro-man," he needs to listen to the recording again.

Back to the original answer:

Uhhh, on the second: Is it not true that men will always be basically irrational, and hence will always be seek and receive happiness from the irrational?

No, it is basically untrue. Again the listener apparently did not take full cognizance of my presentation. I indicated very clearly and went into a great deal of detail to show why (A) rationality is a matter of choice, why reason is a volitional faculty and man has the choice of thinking or not thinking. Therefore, man basically is neither rational nor irrational; he has the choice of being either. And I have also said that it is impossible for a man to find happiness in the irrational, euhh, since the irrational, remember, means contrary to the facts of reality. The irrational is the insane or the impossible. No man has ever found happiness in the irrational and no man ever will. And he certainly is not doomed to seek his happiness in the irrational. Too many men have made that choice, but that does not mean that all men have to—and those who make th, this choice, to seek the irrational, they are the men responsible for the present state of the world.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 165)

More compression applied.

Back to the original answer:

Third question: since art is not based on reason, do you reject it?

Well, now, I have a chance here to point out that the questioner really should be a little more rational than that—and rational means keeping in mind the full context of the knowledge available to you. You have forgot to whom you are asking that question.

No, we don't reject art. And art is based on reason and can be based on nothing else. I will grant you, however, that you may say about most of today's art that it is not based on reason. I will only add—and neither is it art.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Robert Campbell]

The Objectivist Ethics (radio version) 1962

Q&A, CD 2, Track 1, 6:54 through 11:07

Q: Another listener writes as follows, "Since knowing oneself is such a desperately difficult task, how is one to be sure that he's really happy at some act, and not merely escaping, like a hot-rodder, from the constant terror of indecision and directionlessness?"

A: This is a good question—in a way, an illustration of the error in the preceding question. The preceding questioner asked, or seemed to think that ethics is something that applies only to mankind or concerns only mankind, and an individual couldn't live his life without any ethical guidance. Well, this present question is very eloquently a proof of why it is the individual man who, for his own happiness, his own proper survival, needs the guidance of ethical values. Not mankind, but individual men.

The answer to his question is that of course, and the premise implicit in the question, no happiness and no knowledge of happiness is possible. Should the questioner in fact state that he or a man—the hypothetical man in the question—are, is in constant terror of indecision and directionless, directionlessness, and that he wishes for a that might make him happy, as an escape from his indecision, how will he know when he is happy? Ub, obviously, he cannot know nor can ever be—not on this premise. He has stated his problem right in the question.

If a man, uh, is tortured by indecision, if he has no direction, this means he has not selected his goals, purposes, or values. He has not consciously made up his mind, euhh, on what are his values and what kind of goals he wants to pursue. If he lacks that conviction—and this is precisely the field of ethics—if he has no idea what are his ethical standards, his values, or his goals, he will not be happy no matter what he does. Nor would he ever be certain of the meaning or of the emotional quality of any of his actions or reactions.

The answer, therefore, is to attack the problem at the root, at the basic premise. One cannot solve a problem of indecision by asking "How can I live with my indecision?" or "How can I, em, be made happier with the consequences of indecision?" One has to state the problem in the following way: Man cannot, properly, live with indecision, and therefore the first, uh, uh, attack on this problem has to be, uh, on the part of the man, to decide what are his values, what does he believe in, morally and ethically, what does he value and why, and then what purpose does he want to pursue?

When he has chosen a central purpose, that will give him the lead by which he can organize his whole hierarchy of values, but will then, uh, know what value or what so-called happiness means how much to him and how to choose what would really make him happy and what is an inconsequential issue. But without that central purpose integrating his values, he'll never be able either to be happy or to know what will make him happy. Therefore, the problem has to be attacked at the root, and it illustrates man's need for a conscious, rational standard of values.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 109)

Heavy compression once again applied.

[Robert Campbell]

Another early Q&A that I've now been able to hear comes from a radio presentation of "The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age."

It's from the same series as "The Objectivist Ethics," but mercifully is in much better sonics, from the radio station or network archives.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age 1962

Q&A, CD 2, track 2, 7:38 through 10:45

Q: Miss Rand, you have said that the predominant trend of the intellectuals in the 19^th century was collectivism and statism. But there were certain philosophers who advocated individualism of one kind or another, such as, for instance, Nietzsche. What's your estimate of him?

A: It's a, euh, very low estimate, philosophically. I will start by saying that he is one of the philosophers with whom I disagree very emphatically on all fundamentals, yet one, uh, who we're often questioned about—a philosopher usually package-dealed with us, where other people ask us, don't we agree with Nietzsche. So that I would have to say, first of all, we emphatically disagree and we disagree, incidentally, for the same reason that made Nietzsche ineffectual historically.

So to answer first the first part of your question, yes, there were philosophers such as Nietzsche, there were others, euh, who would call themselves individualists and from certain aspects could, ehh, have been classified as individualists. They remained totally ineffectual and they not only did not stem the growth of collectivism but in fact helped it to grow. Now, euh, Nietzsche is a very good example of this fact.

To begin with, when you judge a philosopher, you must always judge him by the fundamentals of his philosophy; namely, by metaphysics and epistemology. Nietzsche was a subjectivist. Uh, Nietzsche was actually an antirationalist or an advocate of the irrational. Today, it is the modern school of Existentialism that claims him as one of its ancestors, with a great deal of justice, because Nietzsche believed that, uh, although reason is a valuable tool it is only a secondary tool. Man's basic tool, uh, of guidance, that which man should be guided by and live by, is his instincts, his so-called "blood" or, uh, body, or some undefined something which he is born with, which is above reason, and which should guide him. Nietzsche is a subjectivist.

Now there could be no greater, euhh, contradiction than a subjectivist who calls himself an individualist. It is in fact a contradiction in terms, because the only way in which, eahh, a man can in fact be an individualist, the only meaning of the term, is a man who exercises his independent judgment, a man who thinks independently. That is the essence of what makes an individualist or an independent man.

CD 2, track 3, 0:00 through 2:12

Now a subjectivist, a man who does not care to think, a man who wants to be guided by his feelings, his emotions, his alleged instincts, that kind of man in order to survive necessarily has to then be a parasite on the thinking of others. Since he does not choose to be rational, he would have to ride on those who do choose to be rational. He, therefore, in fact will be a parasite. Now ap, a parasite who is an individualist is certainly a contradiction in terms.

For fuller detail of this subject, this subject or this issue, I would strongly recommend to those interested that they read the lead article by Mr. Branden in our publication, The Objectivist Newsletter. The April issue deals with precisely this subject and the article is entitled "Counterfeit Individualism." It will tell you in greater detail why thinkers such as Nietzsche—and, let's make it wider, all subjectivists—are not, in fact, individualists, and are the exact opposite philosophically of what the Objectivist philosophy advocates.

And because they were subjectivists, incidentally, is why they were not able to stem the tide, uh, of collectivism and why certain collectivist schools, like fascism or Nazism particularly, even claimed Nietzsche as their philosophical justification. Well, that was somewhat unfair to him, uhh, but there certainly were passages in his works which could have justified a totalitarian state, though there were also passages contradicting them. A subjectivist will always be in that kind of trouble. When a man drops reason, then anyone in anything may interpret him as they wish, when they, too, are subjectivists. I mean, in that sense, Nietzsche politically was perhaps the most ineffectual of all thinkers.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 117)

It's a low estimate, philosophically. I disagree with him emphatically on all fundamentals. Judge a philosopher by the fundamentals of his philosophy—namely, his metaphysics and epistemology. Nietzsche was a subjectivist and an irrationalist. Existentialism claims him as an ancestor, with a great deal of justice. Nietzsche believed that although reason is valuable, it is secondary; man's basic tool of guidance is instinct or blood. Now there is no greater contradiction than a subjectivist calling himself an individualist. An individualist is essentially a man who thinks independently. A subjectivist is a man who does not care to think—who wants to be guided by feelings and "instincts." To survive, such a man must be a parasite on the thinking of others. An "individualist parasite" is a contradiction in terms. (See the article "Counterfeit Individualism" in The Virtue of Selfishness.) Incidentally, this is why subjectivists could not stem the tide of collectivism. Politically, Nietzsche was perhaps the most ineffectual of all thinkers. Certain collectivists, like the Nazis, even claimed Nietzsche as their philosophical justification. That was unfair to him; but some passages in his works could be used to justify a totalitarian state (while others would contradict them). Finally, Nietzsche was opposed to capitalism, and contemptuous of the market.

Mayhew's editing of this answer led to the notorious entry at p. 236 in his book's index, which cites Ayn Rand as the author of "Counterfeit Individualism." His apologists have claimed that this was simply an error. Their story never carried much credibility, but knowing that Rand referred to Nathaniel Branden by name in her original answer, we can see that Mayhew airbrushed him out on purpose. And had Branden's name been included in Mayhew's rendition, the probability of an indexing malfunction would have been sharply reduced, most likely to zero.

Also, Mayhew inserts a closing sentence ("Finally, Nietzsche was opposed to capitalism, and contemptuous of the market") that is not on the recording.

Less mischievous than foolish is Mayhew's decision to have Rand refer to "Counterfeit Individualism" as anthologized in The Virtue of Selfishness, a book neither published nor contemplated when this Q&A session took place.

Oh, and he attached some Mayhew-emphasis, too.

[Chris Grieb]

Has anyone ever asked Mayhew or any of the other ARI folks why they have airbrushed Nathaniel Branden out of Objectivism. An explanation might be interesting.

[Robert Campbell]

Has anyone ever asked Mayhew or any of the other ARI folks why they have airbrushed Nathaniel Branden out of Objectivism. An explanation might be interesting.

Chris G,

They never address this issue on the record.

They leave it to their expendable flunkies and claqueurs.

We all know what the flunkies do:

(1) Piously deny that any such airbrushing ever takes place.

(2) Piously insist that Nathaniel Branden is a horrible person, therefore such airbrushing is morally obligatory.

Which has gotten old. It's the ARI scholars who need to be asked, repeatedly and in public, to explain these actions.

Robert C

[Reidy]

The party line has shown some nuance of late. A few years ago Tara Smith attributed Branden's most famous aphorism, "self-esteem is the reputation a man acquires with himself," to Peikoff. By contrast, Onkar Ghate, in his ARS/APA presentation last December, cited the saying accurately and identified Branden (apparently assuming that no Objectivist knows who he is) as "a junior associate."

[Dragonfly]

The party line has shown some nuance of late. A few years ago Tara Smith attributed Branden's most famous aphorism, "self-esteem is the reputation a man acquires with himself," to Peikoff. By contrast, Onkar Ghate, in his ARS/APA presentation last December, cited the saying accurately and identified Branden (apparently assuming that no Objectivist knows who he is) as "a junior associate."

Ha ha ha! I think this belongs in the Humor section.

[Robert Campbell]

The party line has shown some nuance of late. A few years ago Tara Smith attributed Branden's most famous aphorism, "self-esteem is the reputation a man acquires with himself," to Peikoff. By contrast, Onkar Ghate, in his ARS/APA presentation last December, cited the saying accurately and identified Branden (apparently assuming that no Objectivist knows who he is) as "a junior associate."

Peter R,

Interesting...

Which talk by Onkar Ghate?

I'd like to see whether this "junior associate" business ever manifests in print.

Robert C

PS. In PARC, Jim Valliant described Nathaniel Branden as a "student of Objectivism."

[Reidy]

Correction: it was at the Spring 2009 session on "Reason, Choice, and the Creation of One's Own Character."

[9thdoctor]

identified Branden (apparently assuming that no Objectivist knows who he is) as "a junior associate."

That’s hilarious. How about someone with a pre-68 copy of AS reproducing the original “about the author” here? Or just the part she later cut about Branden. I’ve seen it, but I don’t have a copy.

[Chris Grieb]

What Robert reports about PARC's description of Nathaniel Branden as a student of Objectivism is really bad and my memory of Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life suggests that the air-brushing is really getting bad. I think it was clear that Branden had been very close to Ayn Rand and importtant to Objectivism.

These people need to be embarrassed in a public forum.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It just occurred to me that we are derailing Robert's magnificent thread.

I might do some housekeeping here...

Michael

EDIT: A series of posts was split off and transferred to a new place with a new thread opened: Why criticize ARI for rewrites?