dan2100

Of course, both Bertonneau and Rand can be sophomoric, but there's a special problem here with Bertonneau saying so. If he's blundering around making these kinds of errors, he might make many more regarding Rand's novel and other things he cares to write about. Still, it's funny, don't you agree, to see someone being hoisted on his own pitard? Yes, I suppose so. But it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, he's not making grand philosophical pronouncements. I think he is making grand pronouncements of a sort, but I must agree George here: he's not making clearly and concisely. It's fairly easy to grasp what Rand means in most cases. Yes, there are places where she is confusing and contradictory. But this seems to be most of Bertonneau's essay. The grand pronouncement he's making is that the novel -- and probably all novels and all art -- can be reduced to some form of sacrifice or scapegoating. (And, though not directly relevant here, if you read his other writings, you'll find he's not shy of diagnosing or prognosing on a grand scale. See, e.g., his '“The Catastrophe” - Part 1: What the End of Bronze-Age Civilization Means for Modern Times' at: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4095 ) Side note: re-reading the essay, he also manages to never not take a jab at Rand for something -- as if the sheer number of charges he can throw at her will win over any jury -- and slips in many more errors, including the one about her not writing "The Fountainhead" screenplay and that she and her heroes are materialists.

I've said I believe Bertonneau has embraced a form of Girardian reductionism. I also think flirts with another form of reductionism: a crude count of the Atlas Shrugged's vocabulary as if the word counts reveal, again, the "holocaustic imagination" he wants so desperately to warn us of. He tells us, citing Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult, "Destroy or destruction occurs 278 times," "evil ... is deployed a staggering 220 times," and "sacrifice" or "sacrificial" 135 times. What's staggering about this is that the novel is over 500,000 words long. Were I into this form of reductivism -- believing I could somehowarrive at a novel's deeper meaning from the number of times certain words appear in it -- I might be given pause here: the most these words appear is about once every 2000 other words. One can imagine, though, that because Rand is depicting the destructiveness of a moral code she views as evil that she would call it like she sees it -- in other words, that she'd name that code -- one of the ones touting "sacrifice" as morally ideal -- and name what she believes to be its true nature and its ultimate fruits.

Of course, both Bertonneau and Rand can be sophomoric, but there's a special problem here with Bertonneau saying so. If he's blundering around making these kinds of errors, he might make many more regarding Rand's novel and other things he cares to write about. Still, it's funny, don't you agree, to see someone being hoisted on his own pitard?

I've corresponded with Bertonneau and believe this "sacrificial narrative" view of Atlas Shrugged comes by way of Girard. From my reading of Girard and Girardians, of which it seems Bertonneau is one, it looks like he and they see just about everything as a "sacrificial narrative" or evincing envy and resentment (or even ressentiment). Agreed. And therein was the reason for me comparing his to Chambers' review on another topic here: they both ultimately equate Rand's views with those of the Nazis. This is funnier or sadder, in my mind, with Bertonneau because he seems to praise Plato -- all the while ignoring any influence his [Plato's] philosophy might have had on the course of history, especially Plato's extolling the kind of social control Nazis would surely admire and imitate.

I think that was already clear from the quote in my post... Obviously, not to me.

Rich, Didn't you get the memo. JARS is not an officially recognized scholarly journal for Serious Objectivists TM. Publishing there is not only gauche, it is tantamount to treason :-). Only officially allowed venues should be considered proper means of communication. Jim The ARI faction ever remains a self-parody.

As George H. Smith pointed out, Comte didn't coin the term the "Middle Ages." Also, Rand, while no fan of the Middle Ages, she seemed aware that all was not wrong in the world then, as her own admitted admiration for Thomas Aquinas for re-introducing Aristotle to the West shows. To be sure, Rand didn't present a coherent, detailed view of the Late Middle Ages. One can cite her both ways here -- as a simplistic follower of the Renaissance dismissal of all things between the Ancients and the Renaissance or as praising at least Aquinas and hence have a more sophisticated view of those times -- even if it's still simplistic to, say, a scholar of Medieval history or to the aspiring pedant. The same can be said of his hints about Plato. Rand here, as Smith would argue and I would agree, mostly called it right. Plato did, after all, write that manual for total statism, The Republic. His desire for a Spartan-style state and to socially re-engineer society actually should make him the target of anyone writing an essay on the "holocaustic imagination." Regardless of one's stance on Rand and her big fat novel, one would expect The Republic to be on the short list here. Yet Bertonneau seems to think Rand got it wrong and hints that she's found a villain where there is none. And as far as Rand's talk of Plato's latest heir being "incompetent little professor," one should remember that aside from projecting an ideal state -- one we would today recognize as closer to the totalitarian experiments in Cambodia and North Korea than to anything worthy of praise by descendants of classical liberals or Western civilization -- actually tried his hand at bringing it about in Syracusa. It's puzzling Bertonneau seems unaware of this and, what's more, would attack Rand for noting it. He also fails to distinguish, as Smith pointed out, the difference, too, between Plato and Socrates. No doubt, we'll never completely know the difference, but the depiction of Socrates in Crito and Apology is far different than the philosopher potrayed in The Republic -- with the former being a victim of the state and of -- as Bertonneau puts it, adopting a Girardian mantle -- "group-resentment" while the latter seems bent on proposing a total state. (For those who don't know, Girard is literary critic who reduces all art to envy and resentment. No doubt, envy and resentment can explain much, but I doubt they're the elemental powers of all art and life and believe Girardians, like many reductivists, is merely forcing everything into one mold whether it fits or not.) But Bertonneau does bring up a valid point: Rearden, in a way, looks like Rand's version of the Socrates of the early dialogues and Rearden's change here can be seen as a critique of Socratic morality in so far as it's self-sacrificial. (Nietzsche's attacks on Socrates are a bit different. He attacked him in some places for being a pessimist -- in Nietzsche's view -- and in others for being a rationalist. Certainly, on the latter, Rand, at least the Rand who wrote Atlas Shrugged, would've sided with Socrates.) Others have pointed out that Rand often used the symbols of her enemies to critique them -- though she's hardly the first to do this. (Girardians should recognize this because many of them seem to see Christianity as a reformulation and radical critique of scapegoating. I haven't studied them closely enough to see if they see that this radical critique -- if that's what that religion is supposed to be -- has its roots in pre-Christian Judaism and, hence, is not a Christian innovation. Or so it seems to me.) The point here is not that Rand got all of this right either, but that Bertonneau's attempt to find her wrong at every turn often makes him play fast and loose with the very intellectual history he's trying to condemn her of either not knowing or distorting for her ends.

Just a guess -- and I don't know Cohen and have only corresponded with Sciabarra via email -- but maybe her move was either to please her new in group or because of some other issues. On the latter, I don't know what to speculate, but it just sounds too simple for it to be one little slip like that. These sorts of denunciations often do look to me, too, like someone is searching for a way to explain away bad behavior rather than as the real reason for something.

It is "Weltanschauung", not "Weltanshauung". It has nothing to do with Hitler, it's just one of those German words that have become part of the English language, like "Angst", "Zeitgeist" or "verboten". Perhaps some of them due to the influence of German philosophers who used such words extensively. My typo, but, in my defense, I was directly quoting Ninth Doctor. Also, Ninth Doctor, not me, was making the claim about Hitler here.

Regarding "padding his resume," I doubt that. Bertonneau has written on many other topics and taking a shot at Rand appears to be just another facet of his culture critique of our times. It might score him some special points among conservatives because Rand is someone who's had obvious influence on their movement and, in my mind, explicity ranted on many of the 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. (Jeff Riggenbach and Herbert Spencer might have some insights into why this is so. I believe their explanation can be boilded 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.) I think the fact that Rand has influence among them and also criticized them means conservatives will likely always have to deal with her. She's kind of the ideological elephant in the parlor for them... Seen in that light, Chambers, Bertonneau, and other conservative attacks on Rand seem almost like a rite of passage for conservatives.

The problem with his problem with authorial omniscience is this really applies to any novel, doesn't it? I mean the words are on the page in any novel because the author put them there. In some sense, all of it comes from the author and she or he is in control. The only difference I see is some authors are better at hiding that their works are things they made up and some are not. And sometimes authors one might agree with are given more allowances and room for error while those one disagrees with one is likely to nitpick. What's also kind of funny, if my memory's correct, is he's got many details about Rand wrong. E.g., didn't she write the screenplay for "The Fountainhead"? I recently listened to the audiobook version of Ayn Rand and the World She Made and seem to remember that she wrote the screenplay and had a lot of other input into the movie. If this is true, then Bertonneau was just sloppy here. And, as George pointed out, if he's going to attack her for playing fast and loose with history, it seems a little strange that he's not holding up anyone else, including himself to that standard. (Of course, the pot can call the kettle black here -- after all, the kettle might actually be black regardless of what the pot is. And this is just a case of that, but one wonders what else, in his rush to convict Rand of having a "holocaustic imagination," he got completely wrong.)

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? While I do think Bertonneau play highbrow overmuch in his essay -- well, for my taste -- I don't think "Weltanshauung" necessarily connotes Hitler for most people -- just for you. I also think he spends much of his time engaging in Girardian reductionism (and even seems sympathetic toward lexical reductionism when he cites Walker's word counts from Atlas Shrugged), but that's part of his Weltanshauung.

For the record, I do NOT think or believe in biological determinism. Rather I was trying to be clear about how any evolutionary influence on this or that part of human nature might be addressed. Dan, In that case I'll curb my impatience. I do enjoy learning from others' (and your) theoretical knowledge, but also have a tendency to rush ahead in pursuit of the philosophical angles, and practical applications. Tony I'm unsure what you mean here. I was also confused, as Brant seems to have been, about how you drew that conclusion -- that I was a determinist of any sort, including the biological sort.

Maybe it's worth creating a separate topic somewhere on this site. I have been in contact with Bertonneau for a while now and it might be interesting if he also answered criticisms. Regarding the Bertonneau essay, I started a separate topic called "Bertonneau contra Rand" here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8360

I haven't read either yet. I am hoping to get through some books by and on Augustine first. Would you care to tell what you found appealing in both?

George H. Smith commented on this a few years ago on Atlantis_II: "This is nonsense. "First, the term "Middle Ages" is not "prejudicial." (Bertonneau may have been thinking of the label "Dark Ages.") "Second, the term was *not* coined by Auguste Comte. It was in common use during the 18th century (Edward Gibbon used it, for example), and it probably originated during the Renaissance. (Renaissance humanists often spoke of the *medium aevum,* though I'm not sure how this would be literally translated. "When, it 1818, Henry Hallam published his celebrated work, *A View of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages,* a 21 year-old Auguste Comte had not yet published anything. "If Bertonneau wants to show how much more learned he is than Ayn Rand, he should at least get his facts straight." It seems to me, George was right here. My guess is Bertonneau was probably not only thinking of "Dark Ages," but also of the fashionable revival of the Middle Ages over the last century or two.

It sounds reasonable, but that's probably because it fits one's prejudices. This is exactly why, in my view, testing is necessary with these stories. Dan, I appreciate your inquiring mind, but I don't think such things are possible. Evolution is a black box and we can only look at the circuits, not the designer. We have records of history, but we cannot test those records to determine whether such and such environment would result in evolution. Regardless, there is no need to assert the importance you are giving to the stories. The important point is that research shows how humans work. Let science tell you what humans need and how they operate, let philosophy guide the story how man should obtain it. I'm not sure what that means in this context. Let me try another approach. There is a phenomenon X. We are trying to explain X. One explanation -- one you seem to like because it sounds reasonable (and that's not a strike against it) -- is E. So, the story goes, E explains X. My view is we must find a way, if we want to know the truth, of figuring out if E really does explain X. That's what I was focusing on. Oh, and I must add: I don't know what's not possible, in terms of explanation in regards to this. I certainly do believe it's possible to explain and I wouldn't start out with a belief in its utter impossibility. (Of course, you only stated you didn't think it was possible -- not that you knew.) I'm also not sure where such an inquiry will lead -- what fruits it'll bear, though I'm benevolent enough to believe knowing is unlikely to be a bad thing.

For the record, I do NOT think or believe in biological determinism. Rather I was trying to be clear about how any evolutionary influence on this or that part of human nature might be addressed.

Regarding George's reaction, I very much doubt that. But, aside from it being readable, what do you think of the content?

It sounds reasonable, but that's probably because it fits one's prejudices. This is exactly why, in my view, testing is necessary with these stories.

Such a relation holds only to a certain point, above which it will be subject to the law of diminishing returns and ultimately of negative returns. I think the human population has long ago passed that point. For example it seems likely to me that 10 times less humans on Earth will not diminish their odds of survival, and will probably just improve them. I don't have evidence either way, but why do you think that -- I mean that humans have "long ago passed" the point of diminishing returns? My view is it looks like humans have not and there seems to be good evidence that it's a moving target -- dependent on technology and social arrangements more than some fixed carrying capacity.

I'm going to have to re-read the whole thing and try to comment on it in coming days.

Tom Bertonneau's "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: from romantic fallacy to holocaustic imagination" is online at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0354/is_4_46/ai_n8680946/ Of this essay, George H. Smith wrote: "Bertonneau's inflated, pretentious style gives me the literary equivalent of a headache. I don't think I can stomach reading it again, so perhaps someone will serve as an interpreter for me." Anyone here care to take him up on that offer?

Married to a women for 53 years, been together for 54 years. Ba'al Chatzaf I didn't take either of his "Woman" proofs seriously.

Dan, It's been mentioned. I don't recall much discussion of the Bertonneau piece on OL, but it may have taken place when I wasn't very active here. I read the Bertonneau two or three years ago. Would have to reread it to be able to participate in a discussion of it. Robert Campbell Maybe it's worth creating a separate topic somewhere on this site. I have been in contact with Bertonneau for a while now and it might be interesting if he also answered criticisms.