Philosophy Attacks Objectivism and objectivity

[Victor Pross]

Philosophy Attacks Objectivism and objectivity

Did you know that Ayn Rand was a Nazi? Oh, you didn’t know that? It was a shock to me. An anonymous McGill philosophy professor has declared the following:

“I was shocked to learn…that my department has even considered an offer to endow an Ayn Rand Chair. Imagine the department of political science considering an offer to endow the Adolf Hitler Chair in international politics.”

Private donor Gilles Tremblay submitted the Ayn Rand Chair. His purpose was to establish in perpetuity a professorship for teaching the ideas of Ayn Rand, a philosopher who currently receives no exposure within the entire McGill university academic corpus. He offered 1.8 million dollars to establish the Chair. Mr. Tremblay’s goal was to “expose Ayn Rand’s philosophy to the average student.” He noted that Rand’s is a “practical philosophy that applies to everyday life,” and that this is in marked contrast [italics mine] to academic philosopher’s who “go on and on about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or all sorts of esoteric questions that only other philosophers are interested in.”

In making the statement that links Rand with Hitler, this professor is making a devious claim that Rand’s ideas are essentially similar to Nazism and racism. Such a claim is ludicrous on its face. Here’s a philosophy that holds that reality, reason and individual rights form the basis of a free society and the key to human life. The administration’s failure to note the easily available evidence of the importance of Ayn Rand’s system—and what her system actually stands for---is so clearly a demonstration in hostility and dishonesty.

This type of dishonesty and philosophical corruption is all too typical, and not merely restricted to McGill University.

“Although Ayn Rand was most obviously controversial in her ethical and political views,” Ronald Merrill writes in his book, The Ideas of Ayn Rand, “the case could be made that it was her epistemology that was most radical. What has really driven opposing philosophers up the wall has been less her individualism or egoism than her claim to certainty. Vital to structure—and Objectivism is its promise of route to knowledge—real knowledge, certain knowledge.”

(NOTE FROM MSK: The passage by Merrill from pp. 91-92 of The Ideas of Ayn Rand is slightly misquoted. The correct is: “Although Ayn Rand was most obviously controversial in her ethical and political views, the case could be made that it was her epistemology that was most radical. What has really driven opposing philosophers up the wall has been less her individualism or her egoism than her claim to certainty. Vital to the structure—and attraction—of Objectivism is its promise of a route to knowledge—real knowledge, certain knowledge.”)

Today’s intellectuals, media commentaries, or just standard-issued people with intellectual inclinations—all of whom know Ayn Rand--are predominately products of the modern education system, which has bombarded them with the tenets of skepticism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, altruism, pragmatism: knowledge is impossible, no one can know anything for certain, there is no independent reality, all ethics are arbitrary*, the individual is evil or impotent to deal with the challenges of life, the collective—or the state—is all, self sacrifice is the moral ideal, sacrifice progress to the ‘environment,’ submit to the dictates of the tribe, etc, etc, etc.

Here’s the thing: None of the above systems purports to be systems of objectivity. Very much the opposite, they are openly hostile or subtle in their attacks upon the concept. The hatred of Objectivism is the hatred of objectivity. The philosophy of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, is unique in its position in the modern world—and that is why this philosophy is particularly vilified than what has been accorded to other philosophies.

Ayn Rand’s theory of concept formation provides a radically original, and correct, solution to philosophy’s central issue: the problem of universals. This problem concerns the relationship between abstract ideas and particular concretes in reality. By identifying the basis mechanism of concept formation, Rand validated the objective relationship between correctly formed ideas and their referents. This watershed achievement fulfills philosophy’s most dire need, a need unmet since Plato. It is the very concept of “objectivity” that has driven opposing philosophers and intellectuals over the edge.

Now, I don’t care to become an alarmist announcing proclamations of inevitable destruction for the world, as do the “Orthodox prophets of doom”—as MSK put it was. Such apocalyptic declarations are not mine. I’m very much the opposite. That is, I agree with Ayn Rand: there is no “historical necessity” or “historical determinism” to dictate that Western culture is due for ultimate destruction--or continued progress. There is no guarantee at all. Men have free will. That says it all. But I do say that the current intellectual climate is hostile to all the central ideas that make up “Western civilization.” This hostility is created and maintained by today’s intellectuals.

This hostility and dishonesty is not a recent phenomenon. It goes back to the early days of Objectivism. As Nathanial Branden wrote:

“Ayn Rand’s opponents have found it preferable to debate straw men, to equate her philosophy with that of Spencer or Nietzsche or Spinoza or Hobbes and thus expose themselves to the charge of philosophic illiteracy—rather than identify and publicly argue against that which Ayn Rand actually stand.”

Most humanities and social science professors are anti-capitalist or outright Marxist. Many of them—purposefully, in many cases, teach a distorted view of capitalism. They brush over the essence of capitalism, that it is the protection of individual rights, including property rights and the rights to life. And while is may be argued that communism is dead, I say that statism is alive and well. Why?

These teachers distort capitalism by telling students that it causes unfair differences in wealth, enslaves workers [so-called “wage-slaves”], exploits third world countries, dehumanizes the human soul and creates environmental degradation. It’s no wonder that many students choose to study science because they are weary of the “isms” found in the humanities. They avoid the humanities because most of the courses are irrational and worthless. This is to say that they are NON-OBJECTIVE.

Today’s students do not learn the important ideas were discovered by Western intellectuals—such as free market economics, individualism, limited government, the role of reason in history. Students aren’t taught that western wealth has improved our lives dramatically, and that this wealth is the result of the fact that capitalism made it possible, and that the root cause of it all is human reason. The industrial Revolution proved that man’s survival and progress depend on science and technology. Of course, Ayn Rand was an ardent advocate of reason, science, capitalism and technology. Being the twentieth-century’s greatest champion of reason and individualism---this makes her an outsider among today’s intellectuals—collectivist intellectuals of the old Left or the New Earth First Left variety.

Then there is ethics: The moral philosophy of relativism is widely taught in universities. Relativism is the idea that moral values are neither scientific nor absolute, that morality is determined by the feelings of the individual or the group. Most people believe that morality comes from God or is either an arbitrary social injunction. This is the popular viewpoint with public at large!

Now, If one reads Ayn Rand’s “The Objectivist Ethics” in the The virtue of Selfishness will learn that Objectivism is the polar-opposite of this whole approach to the field of ethics. The fundamental question of ethics is: To be or not to be. It is the science of survival, which is not automatically known or guaranteed to man. Ayn Rand's position crashes in the face of the modern approach to ethics.

*** *** ***

When I attended University, I was struck by the brazen irrationally that was rampant all around me. There was a definite deterioration of course content. For example, the classes I attended had a particular axe to grind for the Western canon. [“Yo! Yo! Western culture has to go! Yo! Yo! Western culture has to go!”] However, luckily for me, I did take Objectivist professor John Ridpath’s class “Intellectual history.” This class was an A to Z in intellectual history starting with philosophical titans--Aristotle and Plato--culminating to the Postmodernist philosophies of the twentieth century and Ayn Rand.

My eyes were opened. I was privileged to witness a living microcosm of Ayn Rand’s “philosophy: Who needs it” when I was able to trace the broad casual philosophical musings of my peers to the philosophers I was learning about: “There are no absolutes!” and “Ethics is a matter of subjective opinion!” and “Man is destroying the planet!” and “knowledge is not possible!” and “We have a right to education!”

What surprised me was not that these old canards were trotted out. It was the failure of the students to be even slightly embarrassed by them. In some cases, they were announced with a kind of “hold page one for this item” confidence that totally belied their hoariness.

Another unique University experience was when Objectivist Gary Hull delivered a lecture at my university. I’ll never forget the incident that occurred the evening he gave his speech. I forget the lecture topic, but I do recall Mr. Hull speaking at one point of the “absolutism of reason and reality”—and bam! A ruffled man stood-up and shouted out: HAIL! HAIL!--all the while giving Mr. Hull the Nazi salute. He was asked to leave.

After the lecture I went to the university bar with some friends to down a few. Imagine my surprise when I saw “Mr. Hail” and learned that he was a TA! He recognized me from the lecture and decided to join my table to discuss the speech. He took it on himself to critique Mr. Hull’s talk and it all amounted to attack not only politics but also the validity of sensory-evidence. And more: He claimed that Mr. Hull was, in effect, a “metaphysical dictator.” What nerve Mr. Hull has in excluding all the other philosophies as being “true.” Why can't they be true? And who is to say what truth is...what do you mean when you say 'the cat is on the mat? Why is it that only “objectivity” that has the exclusive rein? Who the fuck does he thinks he is?

I have learned of another interesting university incident. “Since its inception,” writes Ray Girn, editor of The University of Toronto Objectivist Club, “the Objectivist club has attracted a lot of controversy. The ideas published in our newspapers have raised the ire of many people on campus. The fact that we have caused so much offense is not a reflection of any intention on our part to offend. Rather, it is a symptom of the radical gulf between our ideas and those that are popular on campus."

It's worthy to observe here that Barbara Branden has noted that Objectivism is the exact opposite of religion. "It is the attraction to reason," she states, "to the intelligible, the graspable, the definable." And while it can be said that many "cult-like" mentalities are attracted to Objectivism because of these qualities--it can also be said that Objectivism's qualities are the reason why other mentalities are repelled by it.

The philosophy of Objectivism is not a separate, independent “species” of objectivity. It is the very concept of “objectivity” (little ‘o’) that Ayn Rand has identified and then proceeded to build her monumental system from. In philosophy, objectivity is known as the “correspondence theory of truth.” Many of today’s “Liberal art” intellectuals and professors, as an example of their colossal ability for intellectual dishonesty, treat the concept of “objectivity” as merely a member among a species of subjectivity. And that "species" are, for example, dialectical, feminist, analytic, Jungian, orthodox, religious, skeptics, etc. They merely bunch Objectivism in the mix. They regard the entire enterprise of a mankind’s capacity to philosophize as an indulgence in parlor game word tactics. They don’t regard philosophy as an urgent and inescapable necessity of survival—they regard it as all “linguistic contortions” whereby one merely paints the other guy into a verbal maze. Objectivism cannot be tolerated, it cannot be apart of any intellectual discourse—because it blasts away all of their torturous equivocations and evasions.

To conclude:

It is important to understand that philosophical perspectives penetrate the culture. People are not philosophers and are always caught in some general propositions which they accept from their culture as being true and right. The power of philosophy is absolutely dominate, even though most people don’t even know that they have a philosophy. We can trust that today’s university students—especially those in the humanities—will become tomorrow’s haters of Objectivism. If they don’t become too familiar with Ayn Rand—they will, given today’s intellectual climate—become haters of objectivity and rationality. Objectivity, in metaphysics, ethics or epistemology is NOT POPULAR. It is not popular in the universities. It is not popular in the culture. Today’s intellectuals have all but excluded the concept.

**

(Note from MSK:

* Phrase plagiarized from Michael Smith. See here.

The plagiarized passage is identified in bold and linked to its detection and disclosure. The article is left up out of respect to the posters on this thread, so as not to make hash out of their discussion.

OL extends its deepest apologies to Michael Smith.)

Edited July 31, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[bmacwilliam]

Victor wrote:

"The administration’s failure to note the easily available evidence of the importance of Ayn Rand’s system—and what her system actually stands for---is so clearly a demonstration in hostility and dishonesty.

This type of dishonesty and philosophical corruption is all too typical, and not merely restricted to McGill University. "

There's a simpler explanation. Hostility? Yes. Dishonesty? No. Why the hostility? Maybe, just maybe, her philosophy doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny - there's the basis of dismissal.

Maybe there's plenty of grounds for the hostility too.

Victor wrote:

"What has really driven opposing philosophers up the wall has been less her individualism or egoism than her claim to certainty. Vital to structure—and Objectivism is its promise of route to knowledge—real knowledge, certain knowledge.” I couldn’t agree more with this assessment.

Bingo!! That's why she pisses me off as well Victor. She's wrong on a whole bunch of things yet considered dissent 'dishonourable' - her word. Recall during her interview with Donahue that she said has never encountered a dissenter who wasn't dishonourable. She basically said she never encountered a worthy adversary (or something to that effect). This attitude permeates everything she wrote, and it's at best difficult and often sickening for me to read, and at worst dangerous to the vulnerable. This is classic, textbook Narcissistic Personality Disorder. She was highly intelligent, but mentally ill beyond the shred of a doubt. That's reality.

<sarcasm>

Yeah, it's a real big mystery why academics don't want anything to do with her. Maybe there's a world-wide Philosophical conspiracy against truth. Yeah, yeah, that must be it.

</sarcasm>

Oh, and there's a good argument for the Nazi angle too BTW.

Victor wrote:

"Today’s students do not learn the important ideas were discovered by Western intellectuals—such as free market economics, individualism, limited government, the role of reason in history. Students aren’t taught that western wealth has improved our lives dramatically, and that this wealth is the result of the fact that capitalism made it possible, and that the root cause of it all is human reason."

Funny Victor, I attended two Canadian universities (not McGill though) as well as Harvard and I can say that I indeed was taught exactly that above. Now, that's not to say there wasn't dissenting views and all sorts of whacky profs too, but that's what higher education is all about, freedom of thought.

Bob

Edited March 22, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

She was highly intelligent, but mentally ill beyond the shred of a doubt. That's reality.

Bob,

Whose doubt and based on what? I have all kinds of shreds. All you mentioned is that she had a poor opinion of those who disagreed with her and you categorized her incorrectly (unsuccessfully tried to diagnose her). Incidentally, in the Wikipedia article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, there is a list of symptoms that sound a lot like parts of Rand's behavior, but it is completely unlike other parts of her. A good example of behavior that does not fit the mold was her lifelong habit of providing beginning writers with gifts of money to help them along. I could go on and on with similar examples. If you are really interested in learning the truth and not just in promoting some kind of preconception, I suggest reading The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden and paying attention to Rand's good qualities that Barbara presents. (I suggest this book instead of one of the ARI-friendly ones because it is much more balanced and does not try to airbrush Rand's defects away.)

I did find something in the Wikipedia article, however, that in my opinion does suit Rand:

People who have a narcissistic personality style rather than narcissistic personality disorder are generally psychologically healthy, but may at times be arrogant, proud, shrewd, confident, self-centered and determined to be at the top. They do not, however, have an unrealistic image of their skills and worth and are not dependent on praise to sustain a healthy self-esteem.

I would agree that Rand had a "narcissistic personality style" as described above. Sometimes her self-aggrandizement in her articles turns me off and I have continuously mentioned my disagreement with her over-extended scope at times and a few core ideas. But that is a far cry from mental illness. In fact, the quote above specifically mentions "psychologically healthy."

Rand was a highly productive author and best-seller whose books continue selling years after she passed away. She was not the underachiever that is associated with NPD. As I said, she exhibited too much behavior that is simply outside the mold to call her "classic NPD." Also, outside of the affair, she did not engage in anything really destructive or dangerous in her life other than pushing close friends away from her and harshly condemning those she disagreed with. A diagnosis of mental illness needs far more than being cantankerous.

I don't want to stifle free exchange of ideas and I have no problem with Rand criticism, but as this particular idea of mental pathology is merely your personal opinion based on playing armchair psychologist and not based on any real fact, and it is highly insulting to the members of this forum, I ask that you please express it at other places, not here. You are intelligent and I am pretty sure you can communicate your disagreements with both Rand's ideas and her lifestyle without resorting to the same behavior you accuse her of doing.

Michael

[Adrian]

Sorry - deleted, having read MSK's earlier reply to Bob.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Adrian

[Brant Gaede]

Victor wrote:

"The administration’s failure to note the easily available evidence of the importance of Ayn Rand’s system—and what her system actually stands for---is so clearly a demonstration in hostility and dishonesty.

This type of dishonesty and philosophical corruption is all too typical, and not merely restricted to McGill University. "

There's a simpler explanation. Hostility? Yes. Dishonesty? No. Why the hostility? Maybe, just maybe, her philosophy doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny - there's the basis of dismissal.

Maybe there's plenty of grounds for the hostility too.

Victor wrote:

"What has really driven opposing philosophers up the wall has been less her individualism or egoism than her claim to certainty. Vital to structure—and Objectivism is its promise of route to knowledge—real knowledge, certain knowledge.” I couldn’t agree more with this assessment.

Bingo!! That's why she pisses me off as well Victor. She's wrong on a whole bunch of things yet considered dissent 'dishonourable' - her word. Recall during her interview with Donahue that she said has never encountered a dissenter who wasn't dishonourable. She basically said she never encountered a worthy adversary (or something to that effect). This attitude permeates everything she wrote, and it's at best difficult and often sickening for me to read, and at worst dangerous to the vulnerable. This is classic, textbook Narcissistic Personality Disorder. She was highly intelligent, but mentally ill beyond the shred of a doubt. That's reality.

Bob

Her philosophy doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny? What academic scrutiny?

I think you need to give us a better reference to that Donahue Interview, like which one and what is the full context quote.

To call Ayn Rand "mentally ill" is beyond the pale and a gross argumentum ad hominem. She was conceited, but she had a hell of a lot to be conceited about. She was the victim of her own Atlas Shrugged context into which she disappeared and never returned from along with a lot of others who did return, including yours truly. The fact that one may act nuts doesn't necessarily mean one is nuts or that that has to make one nuts; the context can make one nuts and if the context is removed one suddenly returns to normal. In actual mental illness one doesn't return to normal (whatever that is). Consider soldiers in war, the context is insane, people kill each other. Pilots fly airplanes with atom bombs killing 80,000 people, mostly civilians. You fight, kill and maybe die. Peace! You're normal again, aside from any PTSS.

--Brant

Edited March 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

The thing is (for me) is that Bob never answered my questions. Specifically, if he knows so much of Rand (and I think he does), why does he hang around it if he finds her work so repulsive? This is a simple question! No answer. What's the agenda, if any? No answer.

Ayn Rand, like any other high performer, had cracks. Emerson, right?-- everything God ever made has a little crack in it. Does this make us required to underestimate the stark beauty of her work? I don't think so. Find me a perfect being, and I'll find you bad work.

It strikes me as odd. Over the years, I see people hanging about forums that seem to want to tear down the Rand walls. I have my own issues with the whole package, but it doesn't keep me away. The woman did phenomenal work. It doesn't mean one has to undergo a conversion processs. Enough to simply enjoy the beauty? Apparently not, not for all.

[bmacwilliam]

The thing is (for me) is that Bob never answered my questions. Specifically, if he knows so much of Rand (and I think he does), why does he hang around it if he finds her work so repulsive? This is a simple question! No answer. What's the agenda, if any? No answer.

Answered that on Jeff K's thread.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Victor wrote:

"The administration’s failure to note the easily available evidence of the importance of Ayn Rand’s system—and what her system actually stands for---is so clearly a demonstration in hostility and dishonesty.

This type of dishonesty and philosophical corruption is all too typical, and not merely restricted to McGill University. "

There's a simpler explanation. Hostility? Yes. Dishonesty? No. Why the hostility? Maybe, just maybe, her philosophy doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny - there's the basis of dismissal.

Maybe there's plenty of grounds for the hostility too.

Victor wrote:

"What has really driven opposing philosophers up the wall has been less her individualism or egoism than her claim to certainty. Vital to structure—and Objectivism is its promise of route to knowledge—real knowledge, certain knowledge.” I couldn’t agree more with this assessment.

Bingo!! That's why she pisses me off as well Victor. She's wrong on a whole bunch of things yet considered dissent 'dishonourable' - her word. Recall during her interview with Donahue that she said has never encountered a dissenter who wasn't dishonourable. She basically said she never encountered a worthy adversary (or something to that effect). This attitude permeates everything she wrote, and it's at best difficult and often sickening for me to read, and at worst dangerous to the vulnerable. This is classic, textbook Narcissistic Personality Disorder. She was highly intelligent, but mentally ill beyond the shred of a doubt. That's reality.

Bob

Her philosophy doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny? What academic scrutiny?

--Brant

Are you serious with that question?

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Yes I am. Academics try to boycott Rand totally, usually by ignoring her or making fun of students who bring her up. Etc. What is your information? I think we may be talking about different things.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

While there are no doubt academics who are idiots, I think that it's very unlikely that the fact that Rand's influence on academia after all these decades is still virtually nil can be explained by some massive conspiracy on the part of the academics. It's much more likely that those experts who read the little she wrote about philosophy quickly concluded that her arguments were so faulty that it wasn't even worth bothering about, just as most scientists won't bother refuting crackpot theories, the authors of which then often accuse the scientists of narrow-mindedness and see a huge conspiracy in academia to silence their revolutionary ideas, comparing themselves even to Galileo.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, the penetration of Rand's ideas into the halls of higher learning has not only started, it is flourishing. Simply the acknowledgment of The Journals of Ayn Rand studies shows this to be true. Here is a quote from the home page:

...now abstracted and indexed in whole or in part by Arts and Humanities Citation Index, CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, IBR (International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences), IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Political Science Abstracts, The Left Index, The Philosopher's Index, MLA International Bibliography, MLA Directory of Periodicals, Social Sciences Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Women's Studies International. Also linked to EpistemeLinks.com, The History Journals Guide, History Resources, The Insight, Literature Online, NEXUS, and SOSIG (Social Science Information Gateway). Stay tuned for additional indexing sources...

(Some of the links at the end are hopelessly out of date and broken, so this part has not been updated for a while.)

Also, the number of college teachers who are Rand scholars, both ARI-oriented and TAS-oriented, has been growing greatly.

So, to say "academics," as some disembodied entity, reject Rand is not quite accurate. There are many academics (individuals who are college teachers) who roundly endorse her.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

So, to say "academics," as some disembodied entity, reject Rand is not quite accurate. There are many academics (individuals who are college teachers) who roundly endorse her.

Michael,

True enough. Like Ridpath, and I was happy to come across him. He was an exception indeed. My other teachers were caricatures.

-Victor

Edited March 23, 2007 by Victor Pross

[bmacwilliam]

I don't want to stifle free exchange of ideas and I have no problem with Rand criticism, but as this particular idea of mental pathology is merely your personal opinion based on playing armchair psychologist and not based on any real fact, and it is highly insulting to the members of this forum, I ask that you please express it at other places, not here. You are intelligent and I am pretty sure you can communicate your disagreements with both Rand's ideas and her lifestyle without resorting to the same behavior you accuse her of doing.

Michael

Fine, I'll stop with that. But remember Michael that we're dealing with somebody who actually thought that she really had no worthy adversaries and that all dissent was 'dishonourable'. You can ask me to knock it off with the insults, and that's fair and I will. But do not ask me to believe for one second she wasn't off her rocker. Reality again, sorry...

Bob

[Laure]

Bob, she made the "dishonorable adversary" comment when she was seventy-five years old, after enduring a lifetime of adversaries like you. Her comment was admirably restrained, I thought.

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, she made the "dishonorable adversary" comment when she was seventy-five years old, after enduring a lifetime of adversaries like you. Her comment was admirably restrained, I thought.

Need I remind you of things she said when she was young?

Bob

[Victor Pross]

Bob, she made the "dishonorable adversary" comment when she was seventy-five years old, after enduring a lifetime of adversaries like you. Her comment was admirably restrained, I thought.

Actually, Rand was very much justified in sweeping aside her critics. I have read many of her critics during her lifetime and they were utterly, clearly—blatantly—intellectually dishonest. Critics of her philosophy became more sophisticated only after her death. But not much.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, Rand was very much justified in sweeping aside her critics. I have read many of her critics during her lifetime and they were utterly, clearly—blatantly—intellectually dishonest. Critics of her philosophy became more sophisticated only after her death. But not much.

Victor,

That is not true. There were many bad critics, but there were many good ones during her life who most definitely did not deserve that unfair characterization. Starting with John Hospers. Do you want other examples?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Actually, Rand was very much justified in sweeping aside her critics. I have read many of her critics during her lifetime and they were utterly, clearly—blatantly—intellectually dishonest. Critics of her philosophy became more sophisticated only after her death. But not much.

Victor,

That is not true. There were many bad critics, but there were many good ones during her life who most definitely did not deserve that unfair characterization. Starting with John Hospers. Do you want other examples?

Michael

Michael,

John Hospers was not a stalwart critic. In fact, he and Rand enjoyed philosophical correspondence over a period of years and were very friendly. Yes, he raised quite a few objections and Rand patiently answered those objections with compelling counter arguments. I also take note of the fact that he and Rand were not philosophical polar opposites to begin with-- and any of his disagreements were over details and applications—not fundamentals. Basically, John Hospers was a philosopher of reason and freedom. So I hardly consider him as an arch enemy of Ayn Rand, and anyway, this is not what I have in mind when I made my claim.

In regards to other critics in Rand’s lifetime: if Rand considered them “unworthy of serious consideration” that is her prerogative—even if you, personally, are perhaps impressed with those arguments. Are you thinking of Charles Rothbard’s (spelling?) “Open letter to Ayn Rand?”

-Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Rodney]

Bob, if Rand is off her rocker, then so am I. (See my present signature message for proof of my craziness.) But I find the thinking so poor in your posts that I do not mind! Nor do I feel the urge to respond.

You, and others, truly represent the old guard, which will die off (some sooner than others). It is young minds we pin our hopes on, and it is young minds we are reaching.

Now, off to bed (with you)!

[Chris Grieb]

Victor; I think you are referring to R A Child's Letter to Ayn Rand. In this letter Childs laid out the arguments for anarchism using Rand's arguments. Murray Rothbard was an Austrian economist who had studied under Von Mises. Rothbard read Atlas and wrote a fan letter to Ayn Rand. He was briefly associated with Ayn Rand but had a break early on. Almost immediately Rothbard became a bitter critic of Rand. I hope this clears up some of the items in your post.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

While there are no doubt academics who are idiots, I think that it's very unlikely that the fact that Rand's influence on academia after all these decades is still virtually nil can be explained by some massive conspiracy on the part of the academics. It's much more likely that those experts who read the little she wrote about philosophy quickly concluded that her arguments were so faulty that it wasn't even worth bothering about. . .

Dragonfly,

As I mentioned earlier, Rand's influence on academia is perceptible. Maybe you mean something different by "influence,"

but if this means professors who adhere to and/or teach her ideas, there are already quite a few—enough to place that number well above the "nil" mark and this number is growing.

I do agree that many academics probably concluded as you say (within their own frames of reference), but there is another reason much more obvious. Rand constantly degraded academics in broad generalities, practically allocating all of them to the category of witch doctor for unreason.

John Hospers was not a stalwart critic...

So I hardly consider him as an arch enemy of Ayn Rand, and anyway, this is not what I have in mind when I made my claim.

. . .

Are you thinking of Charles Rothbard’s (spelling?) “Open letter to Ayn Rand?”

Victor,

If you only consider Rand's arch enemies in the category of critic, then we are discussing your opinion and not Rand's. Rand had no problem dismissing both outright enemies and people like Hospers as dishonest, etc. (after she broke with him). She did that with many thinkers who did not deserve it.

I admire Rand and agree with a great deal in her writing and philosophy, but I do not defend that particular habit. It was wrong. Or better, I do think she should have treated her arch enemies poorly, but not the others.

Charles Rothbard???? Who on earth is this guy?

Victor; I think you are referring to R A Child's Letter to Ayn Rand. In this letter Childs laid out the arguments for anarchism using Rand's arguments. Murray Rothbard was an Austrian economist who had studied under Von Mises. Rothbard read Atlas and wrote a fan letter to Ayn Rand. He was briefly associated with Ayn Rand but had a break early on. Almost immediately Rothbard became a bitter critic of Rand. I hope this clears up some of the items in your post.

Chris,

You are a sweetheart as always. (Victor, say "Thank you," to Chris...)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I don't know why I have the name Charles Rothbard in my head, but what I wanted to draw attention to was the Open Letter to Ayn Rand thingy. I understand that this RA Childs dude (now that I know who it is) became a bitter critic of Rand due to her snub of him and his political ideas. I only have a very sketchy knowledge of the whole thing on this matter.

Chris, thanks for the correction! Fishing for another caricature, are you?

-Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I understand that this RA Childs dude (now that I know who it is) became a bitter critic of Rand due to her snub of him and his political ideas. I only have a very sketchy knowledge of the whole thing on this matter.

Victor,

Learn more about Roy Childs and you will see he was not really a bitter critic of Rand at all. We have a corner for his writing here on OL: Roy Childs Corner.

However, I have heard that he liked to gossip a little...

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Victor; Rothbard was the bitter critic. Roy Childs was his whole life an admirer. One small story about Roy's effect on people is E J Dionne a writer for the Washington Post broke down when I informed that Roy had died. E J is not a libertarian or an Objectivist but he liked and admired Roy. If you should watch the Cato presentation on Brian Doherty's book E J Dionne is the commentator. The first portrait is enough. Victor;an invitation when you become an American citizen would be nice. PS Roy was the greatest of gossips.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, if Rand is off her rocker, then so am I. (See my present signature message for proof of my craziness.) But I find the thinking so poor in your posts that I do not mind! Nor do I feel the urge to respond.

I'll take your word for it that you're a nutcase. I see no reason to disagree.

"Nor do I feel the urge to respond."

Well one of your personalities just did.

Bob