Alfonso Jones
-
Posts
1,692 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Alfonso Jones
-
-
[...] Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand [...] constantly gives me the impression that it was a work of love for Ayn Rand, not one of hate, as it is too often misrepresented.
Likewise. I keep being amazed when people interpret that book as an attempt to denigrate Rand. (I understand why people might do that: because they feel that anything which could be considered negative about Rand is a denigration. But I still feel amazed contemplating how differently such people must be reading the tone than I do.)
Ellen
___
Ellen -
Yes. Much of the book is far more a tribute to Ayn Rand. Read the last chapter out loud - inspirational writing, in tribute to an amazing person.
Alfonso
-
Here is the description of the first meeting between Barbara and Ayn Rand from The Passion of Ayn Rand, pp. 234-235. The time was March 1950 and the place was Rand's ranch home (designed by Richard Neutra) in Chatsworth, CA, near Los Angeles. Rand was 45 years old.I no longer recall what I said or what Ayn said when we were introduced and I first heard her husky, Russian-accented voice. The total of my concentration was on the visual reality of the woman who stood before me. At first, I saw only her eyes—and I had the sudden, odd feeling, a feeling gone before I could grasp it, that I was naked before those fiercely perceptive eyes, and alone—and safe. It was the beat of a long moment before I could wrench my glance away to capture the full figure.
(snip)
Michael
Michael -
I just watched "The Birth of Objecitvism - Volume 2" last night. Highly recommended. Barbara Branden's recollection of this meeting (and those eyes) is fascinating. Watch Barbara's demeanor and listen to her voice as she recalls...
Alfonso
-
Anyway, the greatest reason for my distrust of Ayn Rand's teachings comes from some of her statements about the Arab diaspora. She stated, "The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are... [Arabs are] savages who don't want to use their minds..."
The ARI posted an Op-Ed piece by Debi Ghate which quotes Ayn Rand as saying, "[Racism is] the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced by his internal body chemistry, which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." Ghate continues, "It means placing the group's standing above the individual's, valuing the arbitrary (a man's ancestry) over the essential (his own character or ability.) Judging individuals by their race is evil no matter what incarnation it takes... How do we actually correct the injustice of segregation? ...By decisively rejecting the claim that members of a racial group (who have nothing in common but a physiological attribute) are interchangeable. And by denouncing "diversity" as an anti-value--and as the new racism."
I'd like to ask you: Am I a savage who doesn't want to use my mind? Does anyone truly have the right to make this claim for millions of individuals, especially when discussing life or death?
--Jannah
Jannah -
First of all - welcome to Objectivist Living.
I have excerpted a few paragraphs from your longer post, above.
To address the questions in your last paragraph first: I don't know you yet, but I see no indications in your post which would lead me to the conclusion that you are a savage, or that you do not want to use your mind. Your writing suggests the opposite on both counts, in fact.
Now, if you hang around long you will find that many who post here have strong objections to many stances of the Ayn Rand Institute. In fact, if Ayn Rand were alive today I am confident that she would have objections to many stances of the Ayn Rand Institute. The "nuke 'em all" pronouncement is one of the most notorious. You have highlighted some others in the items I quoted above.
And yes, Ayn Rand could occasionally get a full head of steam on an argument and overrun reason. She was such a fast thinker and integrator that seldom would others contradict her.
Now, expect some vigorous give and take in this forum. Participants take ideas seriously, and will speak with passion about them.
Glad you've joined us.
Alfonso
-
Objectivism, like all forms of religious dogma, is a sublime doctrine on paper. It's foremost proponents do a magnificent job of articulating its ideals. Unfortunately, the devil is always in the details. It is an agonizing ordeal to be a physical manifestation of the perfection a mind conceives. Ayn Rand is the high priestess of Objectivist religion; yet even she could not overcome the faults, defects and shortcomings of being human. Ayn Rand was intellectually brilliant but an emotional basket case who debased herself in her relentless, depraved obsession with Nathaniel Branden. The latest high profile convert to the Church of Objectivism is one Troi "Star" Torain. His obesity and objective hatred will turn into existential optimism if he spends his time eating salads and jogging around Central Park instead or reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
What is this?
If you have something based in reality to say, please say it. You have not done so yet.
Alfonso
-
EDITOR AND PUBLISHER
Peter Schwartz
CONTRIBUTING EDITORS
Leonard Peikoff
George Reisman
George Walsh
On Sanctioning the Sanctioners
Copyright © 1989 The Intellectual Activist, Inc.
February 27, 1989
Volume IV, Number 20
(snip)
Assisting one's philosophical enemies--i.e., those who hold values fundamentally antithetical to one's own--is ultimately harmful to one's own interests. And the corrolary of this principle is: neither should one sanction the sanctioners of one's philosophical enemies--e.g., the Armand Hammers and Donald Kendalls who have blazed the trail for trading with the Soviet government. It is irrelevant that such people may profess to be strongly anti-communist. They are in fact abetting communism--both materially and intellectually--thereby increasing the threat to the values of human life and liberty, and they deserve to be ostracized for it.
(snip)
Thank you!
I find this quote interesting - about the need not to sanction the sanctioners. It is reminiscent of attitudes within Christian fundamentalism. Some fundamentalists separate from those who engage in practice X (X may be any of a large number of things, from drinking alcohol to playing cards, etc...). Then the stricter ones separate from all who refuse to separate from those who engage in Practice X (second-order separatism). The process can continue indefinitely. Suddenly someone (A) discovers that a friend/associate has refused to disassociate from someone who engages in practice X - it becomes immediately necessary to denounce them (A), and do separate from them. Imagine trying to compose a sentence describing fourth-order separatism...
Absolutely silliness.
Alfonso
-
I have just watched the Barbara Branden portion of The Birth of Objectivism, Volume 2.
Kudos to Duncan Scott (Project Director), and others. Especially Barbara Branden. The passion in the eyes and voice of Barbara and others as they describe the experience of interacting with Ayn Rand is striking. This is a project well worth support, in my view. I urge others, if they have not already done so, to purchase Volume 2. Both Volumes are available from the TOC Bookstore.
Alfonso
-
They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics.
They have sounded like Peikoff from the other side.
Interesting comparison.
Alfonso (smiling)
-
They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics.
Ellen,
That is not what they have been alleging. They have been claiming that she knew NOTHING about physics and that the motor is proof because it was such a terrible blunder and is unequivocal proof that she never heard of the laws of thermodynamics, yada yada yada.
They sound like Peikoff from the other side.
Michael
Example: Ba'al said:
"My annoyance with Rand is NOT with Rand the Novelist, but Rand the propounder and judge of ideas in domains she has not mastered. Rand was, for better or worse, in a position of intellectual leadership and many hung on her words and Pronouncements. Because she was in a leadership position, her misstatements concerning science and similar judgments made in her name, had potentially serious consequences. What she did was somewhat analogous to some intellectuals making Creationism respectable in the guise of Intelligent Design. Both are misleading and to a certain extent, they corrupt the Youth of Athens. I would stop short of forcing a cup of hemlock on either Rand or Peikoff. I have more issues with L.P. because he was thoroughly educated (he is a PhD) and ought to Know Better. "
I think this is more than a little stronger than suggesting that "Ayn was not a physicist, nor did she have a high level of expertise in physics."
I CANNOT imagine anyone hanging on Rand's pronouncements in the area of science in the sense of assuming that because the motor appears in Atlas Shrugged, clearly it must be feasible, possible, etc... I would worry about the naivete of anyone who made that assumption - as I would worry about the fairness of anyone who thought that Rand INTENDED the plot device of the motor to be serious scientific extrapolation soundly grounded in hard science.
Alfonso
-
If you view the fact that Galt's motor does not appear to be possible (not just not within the range of our current knowledge) as being some negative statement about AS, that's what I would take exception with.
Alfonso,
I don't think that Dragonfly is bashing Atlas qua novel on the basis of Rand's lack of knowledge of physics, or that Ba'al (Bob Kolker) is either. They're merely pointing to certain details of Atlas as illustrative of her knowing little about physics. There's no evidence in her writing that she did know much of anything on the subject, and none of the physicists I've known personally (including my husband) who had some conversation with her have thought she knew much physics. She learned a certain amount in doing research for a projected script on the making of the atom bomb, but hardly enough to qualify her as "informed."
Ellen
___
If the point made were just that Rand was not a physicist, and in fact had no great knowledge in the physical sciences in general, I would not have disagreed. I don't think this is what Dragonfly or Ba'al is really saying, however. They seem to be suggesting something much stronger, which is why my response is as it is. Now, if what they means is really what you say (or not), perhaps they can say so (or not).
Alfonso
-
Rand did mention "perpetual motion machine" explicitly, bashing the notion. Twice (at least). I quoted this above (Post 22).
That's exactly the point: she bashed the notion of a perpetual motion machine without realizing that Galt's motor is an example of such a machine, showing she had little or no knowledge of physics.
From Dagny's description above, it certainly does sound like a perpetual motion machine, but from Galt's words about "a source of energy" that "men had not known how to use except as an object of worship," it sounds a great deal like energy extraction and conversion, not creation. In other words, the machine did not make the energy, but obtained it in a vast quantity and converted it.What you forget is that the electrostatic energy density of the atmosphere is very low, so with a small device like Galt's motor you could only generate an extremely small current which would be completely useless. With such a device you can't just magically "extract" the electrostatic energy from elsewhere at the same time to get enough power, so obtaining a "vast quantity" of energy is impossible. Therefore even a small wind mill or solar cells would be much more efficient.
Nothing you mention was missed. My point - "science fiction" is not equivalent to "science fact" or "hard reporting on science. No pretence is made to the effect that it is. We ought not evaluate things in Atlas Shrugged (or any other fiction) by the same criteria as if we were evaluating the scientific accuracy (or even possibility) of all things mentioned.
If you view the fact that Galt's motor does not appear to be possible (not just not within the range of our current knowledge) as being some negative statement about AS, that's what I would take exception with. Rand even referred to AS as her "stunt novel" (darn it! can't find the cite on that) once - evidently she did not view everything in AS as being totally realistic. (There's an understatement for you...) I seem to recall her commenting on this in a Q&A period for a Ford Forum talk, but dont' remember the specifics (on how one might ACTUALLY choose a different course of action from that in AS).
Alfonso
-
Brant,
The idea behind bashing Rand's knowledge of math and science is ultimately part of the "science invalidates philosophy" argument. Pointing to her fiction as some kind of proof of this is a stretch. Then there is the problem that her fiction does not exactly corroborate this (as I have shown with quotes). That is why there is always an uncharitable and overly-biased negative interpretation accompanying examples mentioned by those who want to prove it.
Michael
As seems fairly clear from the AS quotes you posted a bit earlier, the assumption of AS is that the motor somehow EXTRACTS energy from a source, in a way not previously understood. It is not a perpetual motion machine.
A characteristic of much (not all) science fiction is, well, science fiction. By which I mean extrapolations of current scientific knowledge in speculative directions. The modes of space travel in the Foundation series (notably the later volumes) provide illustrations of this. If one complains about such extrapolations, one is left wanting to read "science fact." That is a very different genre, more closely approximated by "hard science fiction."
Alfonso
-
I am characterizing L.P.'s behavior as passive aggressive. He has not conducted his disputes in a quiet rational manner and he has resorted to character assassination too. Not nice. I have had conversations with L.P. and I do not consider him a first rate intellect. And he is not a nice man either. He is strident and insecure.
Ba'al Chatzaf
I look in the American Heritage Dictionary for passive-aggressive (I don't have a dictionary of psychological terms) and find:
adj. Of, relating to, or having a personality disorder characterized by habitual passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in occupational or social situations, as by procrastination, stubbornness, sullenness, and inefficiency.
This does not seem to fit the behavior description above. I'm not disputing the specifics of your description at this time - but do you think this demonstrates PASSIVE-aggressive behavior?
Alfonso
-
Kelley mentions the article On Sanctioning the Sanctioners (from The Intellectual Activist 2/27/89). This essay starts the whole debate. It sets the tone and context.
But virtually no-one has ever seen it. Neither side deals with it. It's been utterly supressed and unknown for almost 30 years now.
How is this remotely right?
Kyrel, you're exactly right. Schwartz is frequently republished in sanitized form with the most embarrassing bits edited or taken out completely.
Jim
I'm curious. Where have you seen "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners" republished in sanitized form? (I would be interested in comparing the original and revised versions.)
Alfonso
-
On Sanctioning the Sanctioners is also available in The Intellectual Activist, 1979 - 1991 bound volume. A quick reread suggests that it is, there, unchanged from what you have posted.
Alfonso
-
Kelley deserved far better, more respectful treatment from Peikoff, IMHO. I think that Peikoff is a lot smarter than he seemed to come off in the Question of Toleration / Fact and Value interchange. And the ramping up of the excommunications did the Objectivist movement, and the intellectual development of Objectivism, no good.
Alfonso
Unfortunately for Objectivism, L.P. (sometimes called by his detractors, Pope Leonard) exhibits passive-aggressive tendencies. L.P. is a good example where reason has been made subservient to passion, just as Hume proposed. L.P. resonates with Rand's combativeness. Rand did not propose her philosophy in a quiet, dispasionate and logical manner. Not at all. She threw down the gauntlet. Rand regarded her opposition to prevailing philosophical and political views as War.
By the way, The Strike which is the gut of -Atlas Shrugged- as also an example of passive aggressive behavior and Fransisco's investment in San Sebastien was a classical example of malicious compliance which is one manifestation of passive-aggressive behavior. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance. There it is, reason subservient to passion, just as Hume proposed. It is no wonder that Hume is as welcome in O'ist circles as Banquo's ghost was to MacBeth's party.
Ba'al Chatzaf
I have to disagree with some of this. Rand presented (not proposed, actually!) her philosophy in a passionate and logical fashion. Peikoff seems to have moved from Rand's passion about ideas to Peikoff's hysteria - a big jump, jettisoning logical presentation in the process.
The whole DIM thing - I don't think that would have had a CHANCE of seeing the light of day if Rand were still around.
On the strike as "passive-aggressive" - given the construct of the world in a decayed state as presented by Rand, what would you propose? That the men of the mind fight a physical war on the statists/looters? That they cooperate, humbly and cooperatively building the barbecues for the cooking of the cannibal meal, when they will the the entree?
Alfonso
-
Peikoff's response ought to be posted too:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...=objectivism_fv
IMO, Peikoff takes the most malevolent possible interpretation of Kelly and responds to that. What Peikoff said did not seem to be addressing what Kelly actually said and/or takes great liberties at filling in gaps.
Putting the two documents side by side (get two monitors, or print one of them out!) is a good exercise in analysis of argumentation. Note the extent to which Peikoff, as far as I can determine, deliberately misconstrues Kelley, repeatedly. ALWAYS taking the worst conceivable interpretation of Kelley's words, and never trusting Kelley to be a good interpreter of his own words!
I was once in a relationship with someone who always wanted to be the final arbiter of WHAT I HAD MEANT BY WHAT I HAD SAID. In spite of the natural English meaning of what I had said (in many cases in writing!) and in spite of my protestations against her forced interpretations. Same pattern as with Peikoff-Kelly, though: The malevolent interpretation was insisted on, in spite of the natural meaning of the document and the concrete statement of the author about what is meant. The experience was infuriating, and I terminated the relationship (after the behavior persisted for months).
Kelley deserved far better, more respectful treatment from Peikoff, IMHO. I think that Peikoff is a lot smarter than he seemed to come off in the Question of Toleration / Fact and Value interchange. And the ramping up of the excommunications did the Objectivist movement, and the intellectual development of Objectivism, no good.
Alfonso
-
What galls me about David's Objectivist critics is that they make the same mistake that was made against Ayn Rand by very vicious people. They grossly misrepresent his ideas in the same manner that was done to her.
Rand's rational self interest became a command to go to the gas chambers and so forth. None of David's detractor's have any difficulty in seeing how completely wrong and boneheaded that was.
Yet they do the same thing. They constantly say that David's concept of benevolence is the same as altruism. They also say that he preaches appeasement of evil by holding tolerance as a value. They completely ignore the limitations he puts on benevolence and tolerance and paint him practically as a leftist.
(Of course his real sin is that he stood up to Peikoff, but nobody will say that.)
It would be nice if people, certain Objectivists in particular, learned how to read.
Michael
Michael -
Thanks. You are dead-on accurate here in the analogy. It makes me sad to observe how completely (and apparently effortlessly!) some desert their claimed Objectivist principles in the rest of JUST NOT SAYING ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT ANYONE WHO HAS DISSENTED FROM THE ARI CROWD IN SOME WAY.
Alfonso
-
Michael;Some time ago I remember reading that you really didn't understand a philosophy until you could explain it in your own words.Alfonso;Let me welcome you to OL.
Thanks, Chris.
Alfonso
-
Has anyone ever seen a written (official) statement which attempted to justify any of the air-brushing? Whether of citations in books, omissions of whole articles from CD-ROM versions of The Objectivist Newsletter and The OBjectivist, of slight (insignificant) rewriting of definitions of concepts to avoid using the "B" word, of censoring our comments or questions by one of the "B's" and overdubbing "At this point a student asked...," etc...?
Alfonso
This sounds quite Orwellian. Shame! Shame!
Bal'al Chatzaf
It has been the clear practice of the ARI crowd for some time now. Read the current versions, or check out the documentation which led off this thread.
Alfonso
-
Has anyone ever seen a written (official) statement which attempted to justify any of the air-brushing? Whether of citations in books, omissions of whole articles from CD-ROM versions of The Objectivist Newsletter and The OBjectivist, of slight (insignificant) rewriting of definitions of concepts to avoid using the "B" word, of censoring our comments or questions by one of the "B's" and overdubbing "At this point a student asked...," etc...?
Alfonso
-
Excellent work!
(Much laughter suppressed to enable self to continue typing...)
What is telling is that those who have read Valliant's book can vouch for the fact that the actual silliness of the book is no less than that of this send-up!
Alfonso
-
Alfonso:
~ My pointed question is directly relevent to your concern about 'Want "all the occurrences of...?"' --- That word 'all' is what I'm talking about: there's clearly good reason to believe that NOT-'all' is there.
~ Hey, I'm not arguing that it's not useful or handy...like Cliff Notes; my point was about 'accuracy,' especially re the idea of 'all' of a subject covered by 'all' relevent writers on it.
LLAP
J:D
I certainly would MUCH PREFER that the CD-ROM be COMPLETE. What is happening with the air-brushing history is scandalous, beneath contempt.
Alfonso
-
It is interesting that I haven't found any discussion of the Peikoff and Harriman show in the DIM course on any of the Objectivist forums that I've visited (other than OL of course). Perhaps the subject is a bit too embarrassing? Neither can I believe that none of the ARIans has very serious disagreements with them in this matter. The threat of excommunication must be like the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, so they keep a very low profile. Peikoff rules!
Clearly Peikoff believes (and others support him in the belief) that he can speak ex cathedra. Infallibly.
And nobody (within the ARI camp) is going to contradict what might be, after the fact, announced to be an ex cathedra pronouncement. Anyone remember "Fact and Value?"
Alfonso
-
Sam Harris -
The man can get to the point in his writing, with clarity!
Alfonso
Remembering good things about Ayn Rand
in Objectivist Living Room
Posted
You haven't read Passion of Ayn Rand? Stop, do not do anything else, and purchase the book. Clear your calendar for what will probably be a full day spent doing nothing except reading the book. You probably will not be able to put the book down. Barbara Branden did a magnificient job of what is actually a TRIBUTE to Ayn Rand. Her critics (quite a few of whom profess to have never read the book) betray a total lack of understanding in their attacks.
Alfonso