jriggenbach

One should, I think, be grateful for humor whenever it comes to one, irrespective of its source. And I think we can all agree that there is hardly anything so richly comical as a buffoon like Peter Taylor accusing anyone - anyone - else of historical illiteracy. JR

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=179756 JR

Peter apparently believes that "versus" is spelled "verses." Isn't his illiteracy charming? I think so. JR

Then there's the issue of the value of Naïve Art. Once a person has experienced a lot of art, studied what makes it great, and refined his tastes, he often discovers that there's a refreshing spontaneity and authenticity to art which lacks the characteristics which he had determined were a part of what makes art great. He then finds himself adoring what other highbrow aesthetes claim are "obviously mediocre or inferior works," and he finds their favored "far more deserving works" to be cold, fake, formulaic or conformist. His superior "seasoning" leads him to agree with those who have "bad tastes." J "[H]e often discovers" this? Not in my experience. I'd say he occasionally discovers something like this. The canon of "great works" that has come down to us from previous generations is basically the result of a gradually formed consensus of seasoned and less seasoned users of literature, music, sculpture, etc. It's far from a foregone conclusion that everything in the canon is of high aesthetic quality, but on average, the works that make it into the canon and stay there do conform to a certain minimum level of aesthetic excellence. Very few of them are what "highbrow aesthetes claim are 'obviously mediocre or inferior works.'" JR

Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure. JR

The more different things you try and the more time you spend trying those different things, the more educated or "seasoned" (as Dan says somewhere above) your taste becomes. Over time, if one invests effort in educating one's taste, one gradually tends both to stop liking aesthetically inferior works and to better understand what it is about certain aesthetically inferior works that appeals to one in the first place. What I mean when I say that someone has "bad taste" is that they tend to uncritically and enthusiastically like obviously mediocre or inferior works while denouncing as worthless far more deserving works that merely require more time and effort and better educated taste to appreciate. JR

Yeah, JR knows a thing or two about American history (including the part where the Republican Party foists the Progressive movement on unsuspecting Americans). He even wrote a book about it, published nearly a year ago by the Mises Institute. What have you done, besides splatter various message boards with your ignorance? JR

I agree with the specific criticisms you pointed out concerning Reagan; he also had a terrible record of making deals with terrorists, arming evil regimes, etc. that helped make the middle east such a mess. However, RR was still merely on the slowride to hell in a handbasket compared to the others you mention, as well as Hoover or the big one, FDR. Aaron Reagan was much worse than FDR because he loudly proclaimed his devotion to the principles of individual liberty and the free market while pursuing the policies of a business-as-usual statist - thus persuading countless millions of unthinking Americans that his policies were libertarian, free-market policies. He (and his mindless cheerleaders in the libertarian community) did more damage to the movement for individual liberty and free markets in the process than Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ put together. JR

Chris - Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration. Bill P Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies. What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck! JR JR - I fear you responded before carefully reading what I wrote. I said "some progress on some fronts." I did not say or imply anything like "a brilliant record of achievement." Bill P Calm your fears, Bill. I understood what you wrote perfectly. Where I do seem to have gone wrong is in supposing that heavy sarcasm would be an effective way of conveying to you my reaction to what you wrote. I'll try to make it a little plainer. I regard Ronald Reagan as the worst U.S. president since Abraham Lincoln, with the possible exceptions of George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon. I can think of nothing - absolutely nothing - he did as constituting "progress," if, by "progress" in this context, we mean discernible steps in the direction of smaller, less intrusive government and greater individual liberty. JR

Chris - Consider that Rand published that essay in the Ayn Rand Letter, published dated December 6, 1971. I think it's broadly speaking been downhill since, with some progress on some fronts during the Reagan administration. Bill P Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies. What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck! JR

Perhaps you could point a newcomer to just where those posts are... Here's the thread: http://www.objectivi...pic=7596&st=240 # 244 (P. Coates) and # 249 (J. Riggenbach) The discussion was later continued on another thread: http://www.objectivi...pic=7712&st=260 (# 276) I would have liked JR to give examples of where he thinks Rand meets his standard of "good" writing. Avoiding generalities, the first run of the John Galt Line is the best example I know of her tremendous dynamic narrative power. But, if I may be blunt, it's what you do or don't find "good" writing by Ayn Rand that should matter to you or not at all. Who has a need for an attenuated, intellectualized discussion about Rand's literary art? Someone who hasn't read any of her fiction? --Brant Just for the record, I will not be discussing Ayn Rand's writing (or anyone else's) with Xray. And I will not be discussing fiction publicly with George. JR

Isn't Peter's childish confidence that the Tea Partiers and the GOP favor a free society amazing to behold? JR

Das ist ja sehr interessant, Herr Ust. My first reaction to all this is to guess that Goethe, like Schiller and other Germans of the time, picked up his ideas about art from Kant. Rand's views on art are remarkably similar in many ways to Kant's views on art, though she seems to have been blissfully unaware of this, perhaps because she had never read Kant's Critique of Judgment and thus knew a good deal less than she thought she did about Kant's aesthetic views. JR

George, You know me that well already? Michael If truth be known, I had to Google it too. Never heard of the stuff. But then I've never been bitten by a snake -- not literally, anyway. 8-) Syrup of ipecac is not just for snakebite. It's appropriate whenever an emetic is indicated. JR

I'm confident that Phil explained why he thinks Rand is a great fiction writer. But - though I don't recall the details of Phil's presentation - I rather doubt that he explained why I think that. So far as I know, I've never discussed in any detail with Phil exactly what my standards are for judging aesthetic quality in fiction. And if he doesn't know what my standards are, he can hardly explain how they apply to a particular writer like Rand. JR

Nah, you're a military man, aren't you? Colonel Semanticist, or something like that? JR

I agree that you probably wouldn't be able to learn anything from experimenting with drugs, but not because they do anything even remotely like what you conjecture in your "thought experiment." As Baal Chatzaf points out, there is no drug that does anything like what the drug in your "thought experiment" does. Your inability to learn anything from taking LSD (for example) would thus be entirely a function of your closed-mindedness and your apparent devotion to somewhat overwrought fantasies. JR

I have to go with George on all of the above. Not only do you push the limits in that way, you can drop context in these kinds of internal mental exercises - view someone as possessing 'strength' even though he is vicious. Even though in reality you would never let that outweigh the full context of a person. I also basically agree with George, except when it comes to Rand's contempt for those who expressed rage for Hickman: "No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man..." That's crazy-talk. Even in a deep, artistic, creative trance, the idea of claiming that good, ordinary people had committed worse crimes than kidnapping, murdering and hacking to bits a little girl is nutty and creepy. To me, it's the point where Rand stepped over the line. Actually, of course, they don't have to have committed worse crimes than Hickman did. Their smug self-satisfaction, the open pride they take in their ignorance and stupidity, is enough to sicken anyone of any intelligence. It obviously sickened Rand. JR

They were offered for sale on LP in the early '70s by Academic Associates. I once owned a set. JR

My advice: don't even try to figure it out. If you do, it'll only interfere with your ability to continue believing your childish fantasy that Rush is on "our" side politically. JR

Where did someone get the idea that the Republican Party cares one whit about individual liberty or a free market? Did I miss a meeting or something? JR

I suppose that if Jimmy Carter had been even half as bad a president as, say, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, all this would make some sort of sense. JR

I associate the term Weltanshauung with Mein Kampf. The version I read of Hitler’s masterpiece did not translate this term throughout, and he used it a great deal. Why not say “worldview”, when commenting on an English language author? At best it’s merely an example of snobbishness; I can’t say it was meant to invoke Hitler, however it did have that effect on this reader. Snobbishness is a feature to which I react with, as I wrote originally, an eye roll. Not exclusively, however, there’s also the head shake, the nose curl, the wince, the grunt, and the Bronx cheer. And this is not yet a definitive list. Now, why don’t you tell us what you thought of the Bertonneau piece? Okay. I think it's barely worth reading at all. I read it only because Ayn Rand and her work are two of my top interests and I read just about everything that is published on those topics. The essay has little to say, nothing of value to say, and what it says is marred by a very shaky organizational skill, which reveals itself especially in the author's characteristic failure to make the necessary connections among his various points and to fill in some necessary background information about certain of them. I find Professor Bertonneau's style neither "inflated" nor "pretentious." Nor do I agree that he should be faulted for not writing "clear, concise prose." He is concise enough. And his lack of clarity is not a function of his prose per se, but rather of his failure to organize it properly. To put this in another way, Professor Bertonneau is a man who has made an incompetent argument. But the problem is not precisely that he has written the argument badly, rather that he has conceived the argument badly. He has written the argument competently enough, but the argument itself is incoherent. Don't get me wrong, here. Professor Bertonneau is no great shakes as a writer. He's passable, but no more. And his patience with double-checking his claims and references leaves much to be desired. There is no "ten minutes hate" in Nineteen Eighty-four. There is no "Patrick Henry College" in Atlas Shrugged. As others have already pointed out, Rand did write the screenplay for the film of The Fountainhead. Occasionally, Bertonneau gets one of his details right - his discussion of Robert E. Sherwood, for example, as the likely target of Rand's mini-portrait of "the man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11 . . . a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap plays in which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels." Note, please, that Bertonneau is correct here; Rand was NOT thinking of Sherwood Anderson, nor did Bertonneau suggest that she was. Dan Ust writes: "Jeff Riggenbach and Herbert Spencer might have some insights into why this is so [why there are such glaring "contradictions in American conservatism -- specifically things like praising free markets while adopting a basically Christian worldview or praising individualism while supporting all means of stifling individual initiative and expression"]. I believe their explanation can be boiled down to classical liberals losing a home among the Left, which turned ever more statist during the 19th century in Europe and the 20th in America, and, sadly, making an unwitting Faustian pact with the Right. which always being anti-Left mouthed some support for limits to the state. Fortunately, Jeff participates here, so he can tell me if I've recalled his view correctly." You have. Ninth Doctor writes: "Does anyone dispute that the use of the term Weltanschauung in a discussion of an English language author is snobbish, pretentious, artificial…BAD WRITING?" Yes, I dispute that. "I’ve never heard anyone use it, and I’ve rarely if ever read it in a piece originally written in English." I first heard it used during my freshman or sophomore year of college, by a fellow student (he mispronounced it - he was not and never had been a student of the German language - but he knew the word and what it meant). I've seen it frequently in works originally written in English. I do not associate it with Adolf Hitler and have never met anyone who does. JR

And why, pray tell, is the phrase "Rand's Weltanschauung" an "eye roll inducer"? You think Rand has no Weltanschauung? JR

I don't know why people talk about "enjoying" movies, songs, etc., as though they were some kind of "entertainment." I just watch or listen to identify the messages that are tucked inside. JR