Glenn Fletcher

February 18, 2006

Phil,

In the sciences, Harvard seldom hires an assistant professor on the tenure track. They usually keep them for several years, then they let them go. Most of their senior faculty are hired in as senior faculty from other universities, where they have already established their reputations.

I have to disagree with your statement that academia is not a meritocracy. I think it is. However, what is considered meritorious, at most universities today, is research, not teaching. They typically reward researchers who do some teaching, not teachers who do some research. At least this is true, again, in the sciences, where I have first-hand knowledge. But I doubt that it is any different in the humanities. "Publish or perish" is ubiquitous.

Thanks,

Glenn

February 2, 2006

Michael,

With all due respect, I've read Michael Prescott's "Shrugging Off Ayn Rand" and I was underwhelmed. I went back and found it. Here's a classic bit from there:

What was it that gradually altered my point of view? The simplest answer is that while practicing Objectivism, I didn't attain the contentment, the sense of being comfortable with myself, that ought to be the hallmark of a successful philosophy of life. Instead, I found I'd developed character traits that made me unhappy - and which were probably unhealthy, to boot.

The rest of it is, well ..., since he's a friend of yours, I won't comment further except to say that he should stick to fiction writing.

The point I was trying to make in my previous post was, I think, a little obscure, so let me try again. There seem to be people who approach Objectivism as a movement that they want to belong to. It really is approached by them as a religion would be. But the difference is that, supposedly, they intellectually accept the philosophy and the arguments made. They study the metaphysics and epistemology, which, I assume, must make sense to them. They think about the ideas in the Objectivist ethics and politics and accept them using their ability to reason.

But then, something happens to change their mind. As with Prescott and the example Ms. Branden gave, they don't like the person they've become. Then what? All of the arguments they once accepted are no longer valid? Their reason now tells them that the Objectivist theory of concepts is wrong, that altruism is the right way of life, that an external reality doesn't exist independent of your mind?

I'm going to give my simplistic and much too general explanation of what happens to these people. They accept the package whole, without, in most cases, actually understanding it (or perhaps 'integrating it' would be a better way of putting it). They don't get the method. So, when disenchantment sets in, they drop the package.

Thanks,

Glenn

February 1, 2006

I want to go back to James' previous post, which had some good points. In it he refers us back to Barbara Branden's remarks about a letter she received from a young lady. The letter writer is quoted as saying:

"Although my involvement with objectivism is relatively mild compared with some of the other horror stories I hear about, I still do believe it had a significant negative impact on me. It had a bad effect on my emotional and social life, made me rigid, humorless and judgemental, slowly lose friends and nearly precipitated a bitter split from my boyfriend of 3 years, whom I loved dearly. . . ."

To which Ms. Branden added:

This young woman now refers to herself as "a recovering Objectivist".

A question I've had for a while is: what do "recovering Objectivists" do? In other words, after being "turned off" by people involved with Objectivism, do they revert to their former philosophies? Do they no longer accept that A is A, that altruism is bad, that the emotions are not tools of cognition, that the meaning of a concept is its units, etc.

I'm not trying to be facetious here. It occurred to me that we have people who get interested in the ideas of Ayn Rand, read her books, etc., and, I assume, accept as true much of the philosophy of Objectivism. Then, they get treated badly by an Objectivist or an organization and become disenchanted. Do they then conclude that everything that Rand said must be false? I wonder what parts of what they learned they keep and what parts they reject. And (this I think ties in with what James was saying) why do they let the bad treatment they received change their minds about what they have learned.

Thanks,

Glenn

January 31, 2006

Rich directed us (actually Dr. Branden) to the site www.rickross.com, saying that

I suppose that almost anything in the range of human improvement bears the risk of being labelled "cult," but in the end hucksterism will define one thing from another.

So, I went there. He has a search option, so I typed in "objectivism". I got one hit; an article by Ray Jenkins entitled "Ayn Rand after a century: Who was she - and why?"

The opening line is:

The author of 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged' simply won't go away - but she should.

He goes on to say:

This outcome pretty well settles the enduring question of whether Ayn Rand was an important writer, or whether she was simply the goddess of a great American cult whose erstwhile members include such powerful men as Alan Greenspan. Whatever her status as a writer, as a charismatic spell-caster, Rand ranks up there with Rasputin and Aimee Semple McPherson.

If this is the opinion of Rand that Ross thinks belongs on his website, why should I think that what he says about other "cults" is of any value?

Thanks,

Glenn

January 23, 2006

Roger,

I was using "old" in a relative way. I definitely don't think 40 is old! I'm curious why you think Hank was eight years older than Dagny. From AS, p. 26:

Rearden Steel had been the chief supplier of Taggart Transcontinental for ten years, ever since the first Rearden furnace was fired, in the days when their father was president of the railroad.

So, if Dagny is 30, then ten years earlier she was 20 and Rearden was already starting a steel mill. I don't know how old he was supposed to be then, but 28 seems pretty young to be starting your own steel mill.

Thanks,

Glenn

January 20, 2006

Roger,

I think it's very simple: it's age. Why would Dagny want to stay with an old man like Hank, when she could have a man her own age? Except for those women who are trying to replace their father, I think women are attracted to older men because of their maturity, experience, confidence, and, in some cases, wealth. Well, Galt had all these qualities, plus youth. What a killer combination.

Just for the record; I'm about the same age you are, Roger, and my wife is 7 years younger than me (and she wasn't trying to replace her father!). So I know what I'm talking about.

Thanks,

Glenn

January 3, 2006

Michael,

In my previous post my intention was to point out how a lecturer at the ARI Summer Conference was willing to even mention dialectics. As Roger points out in his "A review of Chris M. Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical “, in the Review of Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical (1996) thread:

In conclusion, it is interesting to note that, despite the overwhelming evidence and logic Sciabarra offers in his book, certain Objectivists have spoken out in rather caustic terms against his perspective. They vehemently resist identifying Rand's philosophic method with the dialectic, mainly it seems because of their acceptance of the traditional assumption that dialectical method is equivalent to Hegelianism or Marxism. Rand is not Marxist, therefore (they reason), her method could not be dialectical.

I find it to be a good sign that one of ARI's rising stars was willing to bring up the topic of dialectics, even in the simplistic way he did.

Thanks,

Glenn

January 3, 2006

Roger,

Here's a quote I almost forgot; I carry it around in my wallet. It's from The Psychology of Self-Esteem, last paragraph of Chapter 6:

To preserve an unclouded capacity for the enjoyment of life, is an unusual moral and psychological achievement. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the prerogative of mindlessness, but the exact opposite: it is the reward of self-esteem.

Thanks,

Glenn

December 30, 2005

I recently listened to a lecture by Greg Salmieri called "The Hierarchy of Knowledge", from the 2005 ARI Summer Conference. In this lecture, Salmieri uses the D-word: dialectic. [in what follows, I will be paraphrasing Salmieri, since the "quotes" will be based on my transcription of his lectures; so they aren't verbatim.]

The "context" of this use is in discussing Socrates' concern with context. He states that

Socrates’ technique is to ask people who claim to have knowledge a series of questions to find any contradictions. This method is called “dialectic”, which basically means “conversational method”.

And later:

Plato thinks the Socratic method of dialectics (the practice of testing systems of belief for coherence) can lead us to the higher Form of knowledge.

And

Dialectics is a polemical, or destructive, method. It can’t prove that anything is true. It can’t even prove that anything is false. All that happens in dialectics is that you show that some person or some set of beliefs is not consistent, so that some part of this set of beliefs has to be abandoned.

Of course, no mention is made of Dr. Sciabarra. But I find it interesting that Salmieri even brought up the term, when, given the way he is using it, "context" would have sufficed.

Glenn

December 30, 2005

I fondly recall Leonard making a joke in his "Objectivism:State of the Art" lectures. He was giving his favorite Hegel quote, and it went something like this:

"The truth is the whole. That's w-h-o-l-e." That one cracks me up every time. Robin Williams, eat your heart out!

Glenn

December 20, 2005

I keep a close watch on this heart of mine

I keep my eyes wide open all the time

I keep the ends out for the tie that binds