Frank's Niece!

[tmj]

If Rand's works were published anonomously but accurately attributed to being from the same and sole source, my appreciation of those works and the ideas on which they are based would not change an iota if were also reported that the individual enjoyed the maltreatment of kittens. I do not understand the interest of some in the personal (everything not concerned with the published ideas)life of the author.

I would not change my opinion of the ideas if the author of those ideas lived in immoral manner but I guess that's just me. No offense to Frank's Niece, but who cares,... unless she is in possession of some yet unreleased manuscripts, any chance there?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think that the title of this thread should be changed again, this time to "Frank's Niece!"

Jonathan,

I like it.

Done.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If Rand's works were published anonomously but accurately attributed to being from the same and sole source, my appreciation of those works and the ideas on which they are based would not change an iota if were also reported that the individual enjoyed the maltreatment of kittens. I do not understand the interest of some in the personal (everything not concerned with the published ideas)life of the author.

I would not change my opinion of the ideas if the author of those ideas lived in immoral manner but I guess that's just me. No offense to Frank's Niece, but who cares,... unless she is in possession of some yet unreleased manuscripts, any chance there?

We are human beings, not programmed computers dishing out conclusionary data in response to a question.

--Brant

edit delete: sorry

Edited May 17, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

deleted by Brant

[Guyau]

Tad,

Your puzzlement in #526 is natural. That Heidegger at one point supported Hitler does not weigh one bit when I am reading him. If Steinbeck had been a rotten person, it would not affect my reading of his literature one bit. In both cases, their works are very widely taken to be more important than their personal biographies.

There are biographies of those persons, and there are people more interested in personal histories of famous people than in their works. But the amount of attention to the particulars of Rand’s person and life ever since 1957 has seemed to me to be enormously disproportionate in comparison to the norm for other philosophers or novelists. (Comparison with the case of Sartre, who was both philosopher and literary artist, would be especially important.)

It is a sociological puzzle. I do not understand it very far. Mostly, I expect it is cultishness, which goes beyond mere fan-clubbishness. By opponents of her ethics and politics, it is mostly just ad hominem argumentation.

Concerning the cult following of Ayn Rand, I have been struck that people not in great agreement with her ideas have told me (and not by way of making an ad hominem argument against some idea) after attending an “open Objectivist” discussion group with me: “that is a cult.”

It always seemed to me that Rand’s Atlas was partly an effort to replace the New Testament, to provide a new moving legend, and, through her fictional protagonists, to replace Jesus with a new concretization of moral perfection on earth. There was a lot of argumentation in that work and earlier ones that the Christian code was impossible to practice. Rand held herself and Nathaniel Branden up as being real-life examples of her morally perfect persons; her code could be practiced fully. (I personally think of moral perfection more along the lines of perfect health, which might be had, lost, and restored.) But that declaration of personal perfection by Rand does not explain at all how so many sympathetic readers came around to their cultish fawning over Rand’s person.

I have witnessed an over-the-top sort of awe for the mind of Kant at meetings of those who see value in his work. But they seldom wind off into his psyche or biography; their focus and time is taken by his thought. There is a massive and superb biography of Kant, his life, person, and intellectual course. We scholars of his writings also take time to learn that biography. That is not, in the main, what is going on with the interest and value-weight one sees these fifty-plus years in the person of Rand. It is a puzzle.

Stephen

. . .

With The Fountainhead, Rand gave me a vivid vista of the goodness of living by one’s own independent judgment. I still appreciate that gift these 46 years later. I do admire Ayn Rand, your aunt Alice, for some accomplishments in literature and in philosophy. But that is not all. I have some affection for her too, because of her gift. I do not worship her—that is another mentality, where you hear tell Rand was morally perfect, the greatest novelist ever, the greatest philosopher since Aquinas, and so forth.

. . .

[Cathy]

If Rand's works were published anonomously but accurately attributed to being from the same and sole source, my appreciation of those works and the ideas on which they are based would not change an iota if were also reported that the individual enjoyed the maltreatment of kittens. I do not understand the interest of some in the personal (everything not concerned with the published ideas)life of the author.

I would not change my opinion of the ideas if the author of those ideas lived in immoral manner but I guess that's just me. No offense to Frank's Niece, but who cares,... unless she is in possession of some yet unreleased manuscripts, any chance there?

tmj...really...Just like John Wayne Gacey was a painter, so does him being a mass murder take away from his paintings or make them much more in demand...hmmmm...so really, in reality your life history would be a common denominator. I take no offense to what you've said, but you have commented a few times during the duration of this thread, so either you do care, or curious, or you really are waiting to see if I have an unreleased manuscript. ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

Tad,

Your puzzlement in #526 is natural. That Heidegger at one point supported Hitler does not weigh one bit when I am reading him. If Steinbeck had been a rotten person, it would not affect my reading of his literature one bit. In both cases, their works are very widely taken to be more important than their personal biographies.

There are biographies of those persons, and there are people more interested in personal histories of famous people than in their works. But the amount of attention to the particulars of Rand’s person and life ever since 1957 has seemed to me to be enormously disproportionate in comparison to the norm for other philosophers or novelists. (Comparison with the case of Sartre, who was both philosopher and literary artist, would be especially important.)

It is a sociological puzzle. I do not understand it very far. Mostly, I expect it is cultishness, which goes beyond mere fan-clubbishness. By opponents of her ethics and politics, it is mostly just ad hominem argumentation.

Concerning the cult following of Ayn Rand, I have been struck that people not in great agreement with her ideas have told me (and not by way of making an ad hominem argument against some idea) after attending an “open Objectivist” discussion group with me: “that is a cult.”

It always seemed to me that Rand’s Atlas was partly an effort to replace the New Testament, to provide a new moving legend, and, through her fictional protagonists, to replace Jesus with a new concretization of moral perfection on earth. There was a lot of argumentation in that work and earlier ones that the Christian code was impossible to practice. Rand held herself and Nathaniel Branden up as being real-life examples of her morally perfect persons; her code could be practiced fully. (I personally think of moral perfection more along the lines of perfect health, which might be had, lost, and restored.) But that declaration of personal perfection by Rand does not explain at all how so many sympathetic readers came around to their cultish fawning over Rand’s person.

I have witnessed an over-the-top sort of awe for the mind of Kant at meetings of those who see value in his work. But they seldom wind off into his psyche or biography; their focus and time is taken by his thought. There is a massive and superb biography of Kant, his life, person, and intellectual course. We scholars of his writings also take time to learn that biography. That is not, in the main, what is going on with the interest and value-weight one sees these fifty-plus years in the person of Rand. It is a puzzle.

Stephen

. . .

With The Fountainhead, Rand gave me a vivid vista of the goodness of living by one’s own independent judgment. I still appreciate that gift these 46 years later. I do admire Ayn Rand, your aunt Alice, for some accomplishments in literature and in philosophy. But that is not all. I have some affection for her too, because of her gift. I do not worship her—that is another mentality, where you hear tell Rand was morally perfect, the greatest novelist ever, the greatest philosopher since Aquinas, and so forth.

. . .

Stephen, I loved her for different reasons. To me (right now anyway) I see her as two different people. All of you have had years to know Ayn Rand...I have had only a few months. If you could get into my minds eye...you would know how confusing, shocking and exhausting this all is. I want to know what made her great, what her ideas were, and why she had them. I am not as smart as all of you, but in a way I am glad about that, where most of you analyze everything, I can see it at face value...almost like you can't see the forest because of the trees...and maybe that's what kept "Frank and Alice" bonded for all those years...she was the intellectual and he could see the forest. No matter how this will end up... I am the lucky one...I get to learn about my family in a way most people have never had to. Because of you and the others who have been kind enough, patient enough, and cared enough about my aunt and uncle to help me sort out my dysfunctional family, I appreciate all of you, (even tmj). I may never know why I wasn't told about Aunt Alice, but maybe in the end of all this that might not be so important. Thank you Stephen. ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

If Rand's works were published anonomously but accurately attributed to being from the same and sole source, my appreciation of those works and the ideas on which they are based would not change an iota if were also reported that the individual enjoyed the maltreatment of kittens. I do not understand the interest of some in the personal (everything not concerned with the published ideas)life of the author.

I would not change my opinion of the ideas if the author of those ideas lived in immoral manner but I guess that's just me. No offense to Frank's Niece, but who cares,... unless she is in possession of some yet unreleased manuscripts, any chance there?

We are human beings, not programmed computers dishing out conclusionary data in response to a question.

--Brant

"who cares" is reading this thread so is "who cares" a hypocrite?

Rand is now okay to be a torturer of kittens?

please, go away--go far away--get the hell off this ship!

you are disgusting

Your my kind of man Brant ;)

[ginny]

Cathy, you're already doing a good job of distinguishing the answers here. The next time you say something about not being smart enough, I'll find a way to smack you. And I'll bring Neil just for backup.

Anyway, you're right when you say sometimes people can have two sides. I remember the first lecture I attended. I didn't even know that Atlas Shrugged was laying out was a philosophy. I didn't even know that Rand was a real person, alive, and about to speak in the next hour. That first evening, I saw one of the sweetest, kindest woman ever to grace to planet. Forty-five minutes later, she swept the floor with me (she didn't know it was me). So, yes, two personalities. Hey, a lot of people don't even have one.

[Jonathan]

Tad,

Your puzzlement in #526 is natural. That Heidegger at one point supported Hitler does not weigh one bit when I am reading him. If Steinbeck had been a rotten person, it would not affect my reading of his literature one bit. In both cases, their works are very widely taken to be more important than their personal biographies.

There are biographies of those persons, and there are people more interested in personal histories of famous people than in their works. But the amount of attention to the particulars of Rand’s person and life ever since 1957 has seemed to me to be enormously disproportionate in comparison to the norm for other philosophers or novelists. (Comparison with the case of Sartre, who was both philosopher and literary artist, would be especially important.)

It is a sociological puzzle. I do not understand it very far. Mostly, I expect it is cultishness, which goes beyond mere fan-clubbishness. By opponents of her ethics and politics, it is mostly just ad hominem argumentation.

In their works, did any other philosopher/artist make the type of moral judgments of others that Rand did? Did they call others disgusting, existence-hating monsters, etc., and accuse them of viciously attacking all values? Did they try to establish the public image of themselves as being morally perfect? Did they claim to know others' minds, motivations and goals with absolute certainty?

I would think that anyone who was as morally judgmental as Rand was of the lives and ideas of others would naturally have the judgments reflected back at them. Rand's attitude was an engraved invitation for others to investigate her life and behavior.

Rand's style included saying things that were intended to be like a slap in the face. I think that those who cheer on such brawlers look pretty silly when puzzling over why others punch back. Backing a bully but then squealing when the bully gets bullied is just really cultish.

J

[Neil Parille]

Ralph Raico talks about AR, beginning at around 23 mins.

http://mises.org/media/7943/An-Interview-with-Ralph-Raico

-Neil Parille

[ginny]

Jonathan, Objectivism would have made 10 times the inroad it has today if there were more O's like you. Damn, get thee to a clonery.

[PDS]

Tad,

Your puzzlement in #526 is natural. That Heidegger at one point supported Hitler does not weigh one bit when I am reading him. If Steinbeck had been a rotten person, it would not affect my reading of his literature one bit. In both cases, their works are very widely taken to be more important than their personal biographies.

There are biographies of those persons, and there are people more interested in personal histories of famous people than in their works. But the amount of attention to the particulars of Rand’s person and life ever since 1957 has seemed to me to be enormously disproportionate in comparison to the norm for other philosophers or novelists. (Comparison with the case of Sartre, who was both philosopher and literary artist, would be especially important.)

It is a sociological puzzle. I do not understand it very far. Mostly, I expect it is cultishness, which goes beyond mere fan-clubbishness. By opponents of her ethics and politics, it is mostly just ad hominem argumentation.

Concerning the cult following of Ayn Rand, I have been struck that people not in great agreement with her ideas have told me (and not by way of making an ad hominem argument against some idea) after attending an “open Objectivist” discussion group with me: “that is a cult.”

It always seemed to me that Rand’s Atlas was partly an effort to replace the New Testament, to provide a new moving legend, and, through her fictional protagonists, to replace Jesus with a new concretization of moral perfection on earth. There was a lot of argumentation in that work and earlier ones that the Christian code was impossible to practice. Rand held herself and Nathaniel Branden up as being real-life examples of her morally perfect persons; her code could be practiced fully. (I personally think of moral perfection more along the lines of perfect health, which might be had, lost, and restored.) But that declaration of personal perfection by Rand does not explain at all how so many sympathetic readers came around to their cultish fawning over Rand’s person.

I have witnessed an over-the-top sort of awe for the mind of Kant at meetings of those who see value in his work. But they seldom wind off into his psyche or biography; their focus and time is taken by his thought. There is a massive and superb biography of Kant, his life, person, and intellectual course. We scholars of his writings also take time to learn that biography. That is not, in the main, what is going on with the interest and value-weight one sees these fifty-plus years in the person of Rand. It is a puzzle.

Stephen

. . .

With The Fountainhead, Rand gave me a vivid vista of the goodness of living by one’s own independent judgment. I still appreciate that gift these 46 years later. I do admire Ayn Rand, your aunt Alice, for some accomplishments in literature and in philosophy. But that is not all. I have some affection for her too, because of her gift. I do not worship her—that is another mentality, where you hear tell Rand was morally perfect, the greatest novelist ever, the greatest philosopher since Aquinas, and so forth.

. . .

Notwithstanding J's comment up thread, I tend to agree with Stephen's sentiments expressed here.

It is fair game to say that the interest in the personal on this thread is puzzling. I use the word "puzzling" precisely, so please, I hope nobody gets offended.

It goes without saying, I would hope, that Cathy is an honest broker for the information she has. Delving into the minute detail of it that information is not everyone's cup of tea. I really have not followed much of that detail, and some of it looks like it would make my brain hurt. I don't see that tmj has said anything out of bounds in his comments, and I certainly don't see any reason why he should fuck off.

And, of course, we have Neil, Objectivism's equivalent of a too small in stature bomb-sniffing dog, ready to pounce on anything--anything--that smells explosive. Which means, basically everything. I admit to a morbid interest in watching Neil at work whenever some new interest pops up in Objectivish land. Perhaps I have too much time on my hands.

There are about 3-4 cross-currents of psychology going on in this thread, not just the single fact-driven information Cathy is bringing to the table. I don't see why anybody should be offended that there isn't an equal amount of interest in each strand.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just so people know how I roll, I don't agree with how Brant responded, but he's my friend and I have no doubt whatsoever about his moral compass.

If a troll or newcomer had said what he did, it would go into the Garbage Pile with a rebuke. But it was Brant. And Brant is Brant. That means something really good in my book.

Some people will feel that's unfair, but that's the way I am, so that's the way it is.

For the record, I certainly do not find Tad "disgusting," nor do I want him to "fuck off." I'm glad he's here.

Both Tad and Brant are the good guys, so I prefer to let them work it out.

Also, Cathy is doing great online, especially for someone who was not accustomed to forum posting. I was worried about the attacks from doubters and I do not want to stifle doubt--each person has his own perception. I was thinking I might need to step in if things got nasty in order to keep the peace. But she knows how to hold her own with integrity to spare. What a refreshing presence.

It's weird for me to say this, but I am more proud of OL and the environment we have created here than I ever was.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

There are about 3-4 cross-currents of psychology going on in this thread, not just the single fact-driven information Cathy is bringing to the table. I don't see why anybody should be offended that there isn't an equal amount of interest in each strand.

Each strand of psychology? This is not primarity an ~idea~ thread, which seems to be the complaint.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I apologize to Tad. I went over-board and he deserves a more measured response than what I did, but I've got one big fault of violently reacting when I get seemingly blindsided, taken unawares, and it only very rarely happens on the Internet. I can't remember the last time. I hope Tad takes it metamorphically metaphorically to the extent he can.

--Brant

my first "Garbage Pile" nominee

[Brant Gaede]

If Rand's works were published anonomously but accurately attributed to being from the same and sole source, my appreciation of those works and the ideas on which they are based would not change an iota if were also reported that the individual enjoyed the maltreatment of kittens. I do not understand the interest of some in the personal (everything not concerned with the published ideas)life of the author.

I would not change my opinion of the ideas if the author of those ideas lived in immoral manner but I guess that's just me. No offense to Frank's Niece, but who cares,... unless she is in possession of some yet unreleased manuscripts, any chance there?

We are human beings, not programmed computers dishing out conclusionary data in response to a question.

--Brant

Your my kind of man Brant ;)

Cathy, could you do me a favor and edit out my over-the-top ~stuff~ after "Brant" in that post?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ralph Raico talks about AR, beginning at around 23 mins.

http://mises.org/media/7943/An-Interview-with-Ralph-Raico

-Neil Parille

Some of his info is secondhand Rothbard. Branden claimed no one asked Murray to divorce his wife. There are some comments about Frank O'Connor starting, I think, about 28:30.

--Brant

[PDS]

There are about 3-4 cross-currents of psychology going on in this thread, not just the single fact-driven information Cathy is bringing to the table. I don't see why anybody should be offended that there isn't an equal amount of interest in each strand.

Each strand of psychology? This is not primarity an ~idea~ thread, which seems to be the complaint.

I'm not complaining.

[Guyau]

Jonathan, regarding #535:

Yes, I think that is one strand of personal hostilities towards Rand. I certainly built up some personal hostility towards Nietzsche as I was getting acquainted with his writings and his shabby views of other people.

In the ’70’s many of my activist libertarian associates and friends had become hostile towards Rand personally. These were people who had gone through an initial sweeping captivation by Rand and her ideas in first exposure. For some reason I could never figure out, as they changed their views (to non-interventionism as foreign policy, to revisionist history, or to anarchism, etc.), I had the sense that they came to feel as if they had been betrayed by Rand in what she had put down in her works. It was strange. Maybe she had led some initially enthusiastic readers onto bad ways of seeing and treating people around them, and they blamed her. I don’t know. By 1982, when Rand died, I did not have one person with whom I could share my sorrow.

(Or so I thought. I learned otherwise later; there were acquaintances in the Chicago area who had been hit pretty hard by Rand's death that first week. I think I had pretty much shut up any mention of Rand with libertarian friends. If nearly every time one mentioned something positive about Rand or about Peikoff---I mean some intellectual merit---you get sneers, parodies, or insult, one might very well shut up and stop upsetting people.)

Those of us who were gay had a variety of responses towards Rand finally coming out, after her split with Branden, speaking her own say in the ’70’s against homosexuality. By that time, her views on such things were simply irrelevant to me. I’ve continued to have a positive feeling for her all the same. Concerning the widespread personal interest in Rand’s person from those not hostile towards her, but affectionate towards her, I imagine it often goes back to a personal liberation her writings brought to them and perhaps good life-choices and rich happiness she helped them win.

[Cathy]

If Rand's works were published anonomously but accurately attributed to being from the same and sole source, my appreciation of those works and the ideas on which they are based would not change an iota if were also reported that the individual enjoyed the maltreatment of kittens. I do not understand the interest of some in the personal (everything not concerned with the published ideas)life of the author.

I would not change my opinion of the ideas if the author of those ideas lived in immoral manner but I guess that's just me. No offense to Frank's Niece, but who cares,... unless she is in possession of some yet unreleased manuscripts, any chance there?

We are human beings, not programmed computers dishing out conclusionary data in response to a question.

--Brant

Your my kind of man Brant ;)

Cathy, could you do me a favor and edit out my over-the-top ~stuff~ after "Brant" in that post?

--Brant

Sorry Brant, I just got on here and it was deleted already. ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

Cathy, you're already doing a good job of distinguishing the answers here. The next time you say something about not being smart enough, I'll find a way to smack you. And I'll bring Neil just for backup.

Anyway, you're right when you say sometimes people can have two sides. I remember the first lecture I attended. I didn't even know that Atlas Shrugged was laying out was a philosophy. I didn't even know that Rand was a real person, alive, and about to speak in the next hour. That first evening, I saw one of the sweetest, kindest woman ever to grace to planet. Forty-five minutes later, she swept the floor with me (she didn't know it was me). So, yes, two personalities. Hey, a lot of people don't even have one.

LOL, Ginny your funny! But I'm not scared of Neil...now Brant on the other hand...!I watch "Ayn rand" on old interviews and she is not my aunt that I knew. She looks like her and her accent is the same...but she didn't talk with that type of terminology. I never thought she was that smart. If I would ask her a question, for example, why is the grass green? She would say, go ask your Uncle Frank dear, he will know. I would never have guessed she was famous or well off. I am realizing now, she was like night and day. I can imagine her "sweeping the floor with you". She hated for us to say "hey" or "you guys". She would say "hey" is for horses, and referring to them as "you guys" was very disrespectful. She was demanding and set in her ways that's for sure. I don't know if it was her accent or the way she would look at you that would put you in your place. She wasn't very big, but there was something about her that could be very intimidating. She certainly did have a personality...plenty of them! ~Cathy~

[ginny]

"Why is the grass green?" Lord, no, I can't imagine her answering that. I think I know why. She didn't like, or maybe hated, anything that was ambiguous. Something was black or white but nothing was gray. There are probably technical reason for the green color, but if she didn't know them, naw, she wasn't about to get into a hypethetical discussion for kids. I can't see her. Frank, I think, would have weaven a lovely story about green grass.

I love her correcting your language. Yep, she was precise, all right. "Hey you" wouln't be considered rational or polite. As for disrepect, have you come across any video where she argues with a member of the audience? There's a famous one where someone said something that upset her. She stopped that person within 10 words and ripped into her for being disrespectul and insulting. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the question. I thnk it's only within the last few years or maybe one year where Peikoff made the important and official statement that it was quite all right to refer to her as Ayn without being disrespectful.

[Cathy]

"Why is the grass green?" Lord, no, I can't imagine her answering that. I think I know why. She didn't like, or maybe hated, anything that was ambiguous. Something was black or white but nothing was gray. There are probably technical reason for the green color, but if she didn't know them, naw, she wasn't about to get into a hypethetical discussion for kids. I can't see her. Frank, I think, would have weaven a lovely story about green grass.

I love her correcting your language. Yep, she was precise, all right. "Hey you" wouln't be considered rational or polite. As for disrepect, have you come across any video where she argues with a member of the audience? There's a famous one where someone said something that upset her. She stopped that person within 10 words and ripped into her for being disrespectul and insulting. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the question. I thnk it's only within the last few years or maybe one year where Peikoff made the important and official statement that it was quite all right to refer to her as Ayn without being disrespectful.

I know being respectful was a big thing in our family...but I have let my kids get away with "hey" and "you guys". Really my kids have gotten away with 99% of things we couldn't have. Plus, there are no secrets in my family. I haven't seen any videos of her arguing with anyone...yet. As for Peikoff, well, you all know how I feel about him. He has knowledge and things of my family that I wont ever know or be able to see...I don't like him. Your right about Uncle Frank...you never knew if what he was telling you was right or he was telling a story because he would smile as he would tell it...so you just never knew. Two movies came that I ordered, I am off Monday and am going to watch them. I think I am going to take notes. I need to know what objectivism is, altruism, and a couple of other words I have no idea what they are or what they mean. I am getting over the shock of Aunt Alice being Ayn Rand, now I need to learn what she was really all about. ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

Just so people know how I roll, I don't agree with how Brant responded, but he's my friend and I have no doubt whatsoever about his moral compass.

If a troll or newcomer had said what he did, it would go into the Garbage Pile with a rebuke. But it was Brant. And Brant is Brant. That means something really good in my book.

Some people will feel that's unfair, but that's the way I am, so that's the way it is.

For the record, I certainly do not find Tad "disgusting," nor do I want him to "fuck off." I'm glad he's here.

Both Tad and Brant are the good guys, so I prefer to let them work it out.

Also, Cathy is doing great online, especially for someone who was not accustomed to forum posting. I was worried about the attacks from doubters and I do not want to stifle doubt--each person has his own perception. I was thinking I might need to step in if things got nasty in order to keep the peace. But she knows how to hold her own with integrity to spare. What a refreshing presence.

It's weird for me to say this, but I am more proud of OL and the environment we have created here than I ever was.

Michael

Thank you Michael