Writer or Philosopher?

[mvir9]

I thought I would start with a false alternative -- just for fun

My name is Virginia Murr and I adore writing as well as philosophy. I married young (19), had two wonderful little girls, then entered college after my youngest started kindergarten. It took 7 years, but I graduated last May with a B.A. in Philosophy (minor in English Literature).

Interestingly, it was Rand that changed my major from English to Philosophy. One of my professors in the Honors Program (Dr. Stephen Hicks) placed Atlas Shrugged on his syllabus, which I asked for before classes began. I read the book almost straight through (a few hours of sleep and caring for the kids were my only "interruptions"). On the first day of class, I approached my new professor and asked, "Who is this woman and what else has she written?" Little did I know that Dr. Hicks was an Objectivist who adored Rand's work as much, if not more than, I did! Within a year I switched majors and never looked back. Luckily for me, I learned more about writing from the Philosophy Department than I ever did in an English class.

Since then, I have become an avid reader of all things Randian. A number of Objectivists have also entered my radar, including David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden. As a matter of fact, I quoted Mr. Branden several times in my senior seminar project on The Philosophy of Sex (yes, it was a fun project).

When I'm not with my family, writing, or reading, I teach karate (I am a 6th degree black belt with almost 27 years of experience). Karate helps to keep this proud geek in shape

Why am I here? Well, Rand is the obvious answer. That is not the only answer, though. Often I find myself frustrated with arguments that quickly descend into ad hominem slug fests. So I have been seeking a haven that encourages independent intellectual inquiry and civilized debate. Considering my affinity toward Objectivism, and its devotion to individualism, I believe that this may be that haven.

I should also note that I have been lurking around a few of the Objectivist forums in an attempt to find a place that wasn't filled with angst and polemics. During this time, Mr. Kelly's posts struck me as reasonable, interesting, and sometimes humorous . . . It seems that Mr. Kelly and Kat have put together a site that I will find informative as well as enjoyable. Thanks to both of you!

[studiodekadent]

I thought I would start with a false alternative -- just for fun

My name is Virginia Murr and I adore writing as well as philosophy. I married young (19), had two wonderful little girls, then entered college after my youngest started kindergarten. It took 7 years, but I graduated last May with a B.A. in Philosophy (minor in English Literature).

Interestingly, it was Rand that changed my major from English to Philosophy. One of my professors in the Honors Program (Dr. Stephen Hicks) placed Atlas Shrugged on his syllabus, which I asked for before classes began. I read the book almost straight through (a few hours of sleep and caring for the kids were my only "interruptions"). On the first day of class, I approached my new professor and asked, "Who is this woman and what else has she written?" Little did I know that Dr. Hicks was an Objectivist who adored Rand's work as much, if not more than, I did! Within a year I switched majors and never looked back. Luckily for me, I learned more about writing from the Philosophy Department than I ever did in an English class.

Since then, I have become an avid reader of all things Randian. A number of Objectivists have also entered my radar, including David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden. As a matter of fact, I quoted Mr. Branden several times in my senior seminar project on The Philosophy of Sex (yes, it was a fun project).

When I'm not with my family, writing, or reading, I teach karate (I am a 6th degree black belt with almost 27 years of experience). Karate helps to keep this proud geek in shape

Why am I here? Well, Rand is the obvious answer. That is not the only answer, though. Often I find myself frustrated with arguments that quickly descend into ad hominem slug fests. So I have been seeking a haven that encourages independent intellectual inquiry and civilized debate. Considering my affinity toward Objectivism, and its devotion to individualism, I believe that this may be that haven.

I should also note that I have been lurking around a few of the Objectivist forums in an attempt to find a place that wasn't filled with angst and polemics. During this time, Mr. Kelly's posts struck me as reasonable, interesting, and sometimes humorous . . . It seems that Mr. Kelly and Kat have put together a site that I will find informative as well as enjoyable. Thanks to both of you!

Ms. Murr,

Welcome to OL. Ive been here a while and its true... it is one of the few Objectivist places where one is not automatically denounced for alleged impurities. As such its much more intellectually stimulating than rationalist randroidism.

I believe I have read the project you did on Qtub (it was linked to in the Middle East section). Great work I must say.

[mvir9]

Thank you studiodekadent . . . and, yes, the Qutb essay is mine. I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Virginia,

I am glad you introduced yourself. I was going to write you an email. I still might, since I owe you a few references.

(And please, call me Michael.)

btw - That was one hell of a good job you did on Qutb. I discovered this quite by accident while researching him and it pleased me beyond measure.

Michael

[mvir9]

Virginia,

I am glad you introduced yourself. I was going to write you an email. I still might, since I owe you a few references.

(And please, call me Michael.)

btw - That was one hell of a good job you did on Qutb. I discovered this quite by accident while researching him and it pleased me beyond measure.

Michael

Michael,

I was a bit tardy in introducing myself, wasn't I? And, yes, you do owe me some references!

I am glad that you came across (and enjoyed) the Qutb essay. I was pleasantly surprised to see it referenced here -- so, thank you. Sayyid Qutb is an amazingly important figurehead in Islamism (I say "amazingly" because so few Westerners know who he is). It is wonderful that you have brought attention to his influence on Islamism.

[Chris Grieb]

As I just said I've already welcomed you. The answer to your question is that you like Ayn Rand are both.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Ross Barlow]

Welcome, Virginia. I also majored in philosophy because of Rand’s influence. I minored in history, and I taught high school social studies for 10 years.

I have always thought that the extra year it took me to complete the philosophy B.A. was well worth while. If I had not completed it, I felt that I would have cheated myself. I feel richer because of it. And I actually got to teach a philosophy course as an elective in my high school, in which the first reading was Rand’s essay, “Philosophy: Who Needs It?”

Regarding radical Islamism, you went right for the heart of it by focusing on Qutb. Great job.

-Ross Barlow.

[mvir9]

Welcome, Virginia. I also majored in philosophy because of Rand’s influence. I minored in history, and I taught high school social studies for 10 years.

I have always thought that the extra year it took me to complete the philosophy B.A. was well worth while. If I had not completed it, I felt that I would have cheated myself. I feel richer because of it. And I actually got to teach a philosophy course as an elective in my high school, in which the first reading was Rand’s essay, “Philosophy: Who Needs It?”

Regarding radical Islamism, you went right for the heart of it by focusing on Qutb. Great job.

-Ross Barlow.

I love the harmony in the humanities! History and philosophy are (like English and philosophy) quite complementary.

Do you have a particular historical focus? I enjoy reading Greek history and I am firmly dedicated to researching failed socio-political systems (with the goal of trying to understand where things went wrong).

Thanks for the kind words about my Qutb essay. As horrible as it was to research (I always felt like I needed a shower . . .), it really was a labor of love because it fed my intellectual curiosity.

[Barbara Branden]

Help! Will someone please tell me where to find Virginia's essay?

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

Help! Will someone please tell me where to find Virginia's essay?

Barbara

Go to Virginia's profile and find her first post on OL. Go there and scroll up to post #1 by Michael and toward the bottom is the link.

--Brant

[mvir9]

Hello Ms. Branden!

Michael posted my essay in the MidEast section of OL (under "Milestones -- the Intellectual Battleground").

Or, here's a direct link to it at the website of Dr. Stephen Hicks.

I hope you enjoy reading it.

Virginia

[Steve Gagne]

Der Ms. Murr

Thank you.

Your writing is clear, crisp, and opens doors previously unseen. Much appreciated, and welcome.

On a personal note, congratualtions on getting your key. You studied under Dr. Hicks the entire time you were at Rockford? When did Dr. Walhout retire?

I look forward to reading more from you.

vty

Steve Gagne

[BaalChatzaf]

I thought I would start with a false alternative -- just for fun

My name is Virginia Murr and I adore writing as well as philosophy. I married young (19), had two wonderful little girls, then entered college after my youngest started kindergarten. It took 7 years, but I graduated last May with a B.A. in Philosophy (minor in English Literature).

Yeah. It is a false alternative. Two of the best writers in the English language, Hobbes and Hume were also leading philosophers. Thomas Paine who was also one of the best writers (in English) was very philosophical in the way he propagandized for the American Revolution.

One the other hand, being a philosopher is not guarantee of writing skill. Look at the output of Immanuel Kant! No one can really be sure of what he is saying, at least not in his -Critques-.

Bertrand Russel was not a bad writer, but he was a crashing bore. J.S.Mill wrote well enough, but his material does not emit lightning flashes and strike sparks.

The Rambam, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, was one of the leading Aristotelean philosophers and sages of his time and was the role model for Thomas Aquinas in the following century. His Hebrew writing was gorgeous and pellucid. If you do not know Hebrew it might be worth you while to learn it just so you can read the Rambam.

One of the best writers of all time (and it even shows through the translations) was the philosopher Plato. You might not agree with his philosophy, but he was witty and playful in his writing.

Ayn Rand was a top notch novelist in English which was not her native language. Unfortunately she let her polemic trip up her logic at times, which is why she is not a top grade philosopher. From a purely logical and technical point of view, her philosophy (exciting as it is) is really full of holes, somewhat like Swiss Cheese. Let me leave the following for you as an exercise: why is the Benevolent Universe principle prima facia absurd? Ditto for the Malevolent Universe principle. What is Rand assuming and why is her assumption wrong?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 4, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand was a top notch novelist in English which was not her native language. Unfortunately she let her polemic trip up her logic at times, which is why she is not a top grade philosopher. From a purely logical and technical point of view, her philosophy (exciting as it is) is really full of holes, somewhat like Swiss Cheese. Let me leave the following for you as an exercise: why is the Benevolent Universe principle prima facia absurd? Ditto for the Malevolent Universe principle. What is Rand assuming and why is her assumption wrong?

I'd like examples of some "top grade" contemporary philosophers, if any by your lights.

The principles are absurd because they give moral agency to inanimate matter acting for or against you making you either a welfare recipient or victim, contra self-esteem. These are implicit affirmations of the existence of an all-knowing, all seeing Supreme Being. It is also contra the impotence of evil, on which Ayn Rand hung everything, really. The problem with this last is it assumes the possibility of the purity of good and the purity of evil leaving the vast in-between undealt with.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I'd like examples of some "top grade" contemporary philosophers, if any by your lights.

Mario Bunge, Daniel Dennett, Karl Popper, Hans Reichenbach, Ruth Millikan, Robert Nozick.

These are a few who come to mind right off. There are more.

One thing they all have in common. None of them have propose all encompassing systems of thought. Their work is on a much more modest scale, but of a higher quality than Rand produced philosophically. They are all well acquainted with science (particularly physics) and mathematics. Their work pretty well concentrated in epistemology and the philosophical issues related to science. They did not produce ethical systems or political works (except for Dennett who has been going on the pro-atheist anti-religious warpath of late and the late Robert Nozick whose book -Anarchy, State and Utopia- is about political theory). Rand was pretty much an ignoramus in science and math. There is no shame in being ignorant. We are all born ignorant.

Since Rand was primarily a novelist she wrote in a popular manner for a popular audience. The folks I mentioned are quite technical and work (or worked) in the academic domain. Rand never appealed to the academic group nor did she attempt to.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Late addition: Avner Shimony who was fairly unusual. He was both a PhD physicist and a PhD philosopher. One does not see that combination too often I had the honor of sitting next to Avner Shimony in Stanley Deser's graduate seminar on General Relativity and Gauge Theory. Avner taught be a great deal and he is a sweet fine gentleman. He aged and mellowed (he is pushing 90 about now). I age and get crustier by the minute.

Edited September 4, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Rand was also a proponent of the human spirit. Once Nathaniel Branden was asked what consciousness was made of and he responded, "consciousness." I think this was Rand's approach, also.

As living things can survive and run a normal life cycle in the universe, the possibility of this is what I believe is meant by "benevolent universe." I don't recall Rand saying this as strict ontology, anyway. I remember this more as a form of looking at life—a psychological starting point, so to speak.

Also, Bob's constant and repeated mantra that Rand was an ignoramus in math and science is incorrect. I believe the reason he repeats it so often is to see if it takes, since he cannot prove it. She was not an expert, but she was far from an ignoramus.

Anything to get an attention fix, I suppose...

Michael

[Rodney]

One of her teachers, impressed, told her it would be a shame if she went into anything but mathematics. She said, "No, it's not enough."

[mvir9]

Der Ms. Murr

Thank you.

Your writing is clear, crisp, and opens doors previously unseen. Much appreciated, and welcome.

On a personal note, congratualtions on getting your key. You studied under Dr. Hicks the entire time you were at Rockford? When did Dr. Walhout retire?

I look forward to reading more from you.

vty

Steve Gagne

I appreciate your sentiments about my essay -- very much so.

Regarding Mr. Walhout: The year I entered college (2000), I believe, was Rockford College's first year without him. I was honored to win the Philosophy prize in his name several years later, however I heard good things about him, but I couldn't imagine being happier that I ended up with Dr. Hicks as my professor and academic counselor.

It should be noted that sometime around my junior year, Dr. Hicks hired a second philosophy professor (Dr. Flamm). He is a pragmatist with a wonderfully open teaching style. I initially balked at taking his courses (I was aware of how difficult it could be to take a philosophy or philosophy-related course from someone you vehemently disagree with), but Dr. Hicks insisted -- and I'm glad for it.

Dr. Hicks hired a third philosophy professor after my graduation, Dr. Klein. From what I have ascertained, Dr. Klein is a capitalist, Aristotelian sort with a strong background in classical philosophy. I think I would have enjoyed his classes as well

Sincerely,

Virginia

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant,

Rand was also a proponent of the human spirit. Once Nathaniel Branden was asked what consciousness was made of and he responded, "consciousness." I think this was Rand's approach, also.

As living things can survive and run a normal life cycle in the universe, the possibility of this is what I believe is meant by "benevolent universe." I don't recall Rand saying this as strict ontology, anyway. I remember this more as a form of looking at life—a psychological starting point, so to speak.

Also, Bob's constant and repeated mantra that Rand was an ignoramus in math and science is incorrect. I believe the reason he repeats it so often is to see if it takes, since he cannot prove it. She was not an expert, but she was far from an ignoramus.

Anything to get an attention fix, I suppose...

Michael

Rands attempt at science fiction, -Atlas Shrugged- invoked a device which was logically equivalent to a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

Here is a cut from the Wiki article on the matter:

Galt's motor

John Galt invented a new type of electrical apparatus described in the book as a motor. This motor is revolutionary because it uses static electricity from the atmosphere as its main source of energy, requiring only a small amount of conventional fuel to run the conversion mechanism. This approximates a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work (versus conventional heat engines, which convert thermal energy into mechanical work by transferring thermal energy from one reservoir to another). The theory is that the power is drawn from the environment (possibly approximating the Casimir effect, though that was extremely obscure and scientifically controversial at the time Atlas Shrugged was written).

The book gives the source as static electricity from the air, and suggests that a new physics was necessary to tap it.

Dagny discovers a discarded prototype of the motor, and it is superficially described in section Part 1, Chapter 9. In Part 3, Chapter 1, Dagny learns that Galt is using a working version of the motor to generate electricity for Galt's Gulch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the matter of Perpetual Motion, there ain't no such thing. It violates several well established (I mean supported by a vast mass of empirical evidence) laws of conservations and thermodynamics. The area between the stratosphere and the ground is a giant capacitor. You get generate stead electrical current from a capacitor. You can get a spark, a zap, a jolt but no current.

Perpetual motion is right up there with Time Travel, Faster than Light motion of massive bodies, and energy from nothing. There ain't no such things.

Now -that- is what I meant by ignorance. And if the Galt Machine were not bad enough somewhere in -Atlas Shrugged- (I owe you a citation on this) she talked about men relighting dead stars. Again a violation of the conservation of energy. I seriously doubt whether Rand even heard of the Casimir Effect. In any case the C.E. is not a practical source of energy capable of producing mechanical work.

There are two things a minimally educated person must know whether or not he specializes in science is that matter is made of atoms and there is no such thing as a Perpetual Motion Machine or process.

Maybe Rand knww that stuff is made of atoms. It is possible. But she did not know diddly squat about conservation of energy.

As for Rand's "intellectual heir" L.P. he had the gall to denigrate all of modern logic out of hand. He did so in a telephone conversation I had with him. He is an intellectual bigot and a technical ignoramus. He does not know enough formal logic to denigrate it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 4, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[mvir9]

I thought I would start with a false alternative -- just for fun

My name is Virginia Murr and I adore writing as well as philosophy. I married young (19), had two wonderful little girls, then entered college after my youngest started kindergarten. It took 7 years, but I graduated last May with a B.A. in Philosophy (minor in English Literature).

Yeah. It is a false alternative. Two of the best writers in the English language, Hobbes and Hume were also leading philosophers. Thomas Paine who was also one of the best writers (in English) was very philosophical in the way he propagandized for the American Revolution.

One the other hand, being a philosopher is not guarantee of writing skill. Look at the output of Immanuel Kant! No one can really be sure of what he is saying, at least not in his -Critques-.

Bertrand Russel was not a bad writer, but he was a crashing bore. J.S.Mill wrote well enough, but his material does not emit lightning flashes and strike sparks.

The Rambam, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, was one of the leading Aristotelean philosophers and sages of his time and was the role model for Thomas Aquinas in the following century. His Hebrew writing was gorgeous and pellucid. If you do not know Hebrew it might be worth you while to learn it just so you can read the Rambam.

One of the best writers of all time (and it even shows through the translations) was the philosopher Plato. You might not agree with his philosophy, but he was witty and playful in his writing.

Ayn Rand was a top notch novelist in English which was not her native language. Unfortunately she let her polemic trip up her logic at times, which is why she is not a top grade philosopher. From a purely logical and technical point of view, her philosophy (exciting as it is) is really full of holes, somewhat like Swiss Cheese. Let me leave the following for you as an exercise: why is the Benevolent Universe principle prima facia absurd? Ditto for the Malevolent Universe principle. What is Rand assuming and why is her assumption wrong?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, I agree that Plato was a tremendously gifted writer . . . and, yes, I disagree with his philosophy. As much as I would wish it otherwise, the two just don't always go hand-in-hand (*wink). I would also put Nietzsche in this category, however.

Kant is a wonderful example of a gifted (again, I disagree with him) philosopher, but horrendous writer. You missed John Locke, though. We used to have a competition in the Honors Program to find Locke's longest run-on sentence. If I remember correctly, his longest run-on was over 350 words long.

And, I see that you set off some controversy regarding Rand. I think I fall somewhere inbetween the two camps on this one. First, I would separate her fiction from her non-fiction. Her fiction is philosophy-heavy, of course, but that doesn't make it any less fictional. From this point of view, I have always adored Rand's gift for telling a story. Her primary characters are wonderfully intricate, and she had the perfect mind for concretizing abstract concepts in her fictional works. So, yes, she was a wonderful writer.

Regarding her non-fiction works: they were very well-written. Were they philosophically sound? You state that her knowledge in science and mathematics was lacking. Honestly, I can't judge this -- I am sadly lacking in those departments myself. Nothing has stood out to me as obvious "swiss cheese" holes, however (and I would hope that I am intelligent enough to see the difference between sharp cheddar and swiss)! I can say that the majority of her philosophy (at least the parts that I grasp fully) is logically sound (otherwise, I certainly wouldn't like her as much as I do).

If there are any "swiss cheese" holes, I would say that they are in her psychological theories. From the time I began to research Rand and her philosophy, I have turned elsewhere for psychological theory. I am certainly a believer of mind/body integration, yet I question Rand's full integration. Of course, being led by whimsical emotion is an irrational thing -- but experiencing rational emotions derived from automatized evaluative judgments that are derived from reason is human (and, therefore, good). In many instances, it seems to me that Rand prefers to deny emotions in certain cases rather than to experience them rationally.

My criticisms of Rand are few and far between, but there are a few.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Virginia Murr

[mvir9]

Brant,

As living things can survive and run a normal life cycle in the universe, the possibility of this is what I believe is meant by "benevolent universe." I don't recall Rand saying this as strict ontology, anyway. I remember this more as a form of looking at life—a psychological starting point, so to speak.

Michael

I agree with you, Michael. However, the "malevolent universe" is the ontological concept accepted by many religious folks (the world is bad, humans are sinful, death is good, etc.). I think when Rand referred to this concept, she meant it ontologically -- but only because it accurately represented the opposing position.

On the other hand, a "benevolent universe" theory is a human-based view of life, which adheres to the notion that (as you said) "all living things can survive and run a normal life cycle in the universe." However, I would also add man's rational capacity as an important factor in a benevolent universe. This point of view allows humans to trust (here's the psychological part) that they can achieve a happy life in this world -- through their own volition. Please note that the "trust" is based on actuality rather than some netherworld assumptions.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the matter of Perpetual Motion, there ain't no such thing. It violates several well established (I mean supported by a vast mass of empirical evidence) laws of conservations and thermodynamics. The area between the stratosphere and the ground is a giant capacitor. You get generate stead electrical current from a capacitor. You can get a spark, a zap, a jolt but no current.

Perpetual motion is right up there with Time Travel, Faster than Light motion of massive bodies, and energy from nothing. There ain't no such things.

Now -that- is what I meant by ignorance. And if the Galt Machine were not bad enough somewhere in -Atlas Shrugged- (I owe you a citation on this) she talked about men relighting dead stars. Again a violation of the conservation of energy. I seriously doubt whether Rand even heard of the Casimir Effect. In any case the C.E. is not a practical source of energy capable of producing mechanical work.

Bob,

Cheeeeriiiiist! If you want to bash a Wikipedia article, go ahead. But pretend that the Wikipedia article is Rand is... what? What do you want to do with this? I am biting my tongue right now.

Perpetual motion is only mentioned twice in Rand's published works, and not in Atlas Shrugged at all. Here are the quotes:

The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 3—March, 1962, "Check Your Premises"

Let's see whether we can adopt Mr. Minow's concept of censorship: it would mean that the failure of a bad play is "censorship by the box office"—that the frustration of a lady who, weighing three hundred pounds, does not get a chance to model filmy negligees, is "censorship by advertisers"—that the plight of an inventor who finds no backers for his perpetual motion machine, is "censorship by bankers"—that the bankruptcy of a manufacturer who offers us gadgets which we don't buy, is "censorship by consumers"—and that free expression is stifled, whenever a manuscript molders in its author's trunk, cut out by "the censorship of publishers" who decree that we cannot read or hear something.

The Letters of Ayn Rand, Letter to John Hospers dated January 3, 1961 (p. 518).

The slogan "It will work if you want it to work" was used in a metaphysical, not a psychological, context. That slogan does not say: "You will make things work if you take the appropriate actions." It says: "Things will work as your desire commands them to work, regardless of their actual nature." That slogan means (literally, and in most frequent usage) that one's desire can affect the metaphysical nature of facts and of inanimate objects, as, for instance: "A perpetual motion machine will work if you want it to work."

In both cases Rand is not referring to something that works. Yet you accuse her of proposing precisely that. But it gets worse. Here is what Peikoff had to say about perpetual motion:

Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Chapter 2, "Sense Perception And Volition" (p. 41)

Conceptualization involves an interpretation that may not conform to reality, an organization of data that is not necessitated by physical fact; one can, therefore, "think about nothing," i.e., nothing real, such as a perpetual-motion machine or demonic possession or Santa Claus. But the senses sum up automatically what is.

Chapter 9, "Happiness" (p. 326)

The concept of "practical" is not restricted to the field of ethics. It pertains to the adapting of means to ends in any field. If knowledge is one's goal, observation is practical, prayer is not. If the conquest of typhoid is the goal, immunization is practical, the beating of tom toms is not. If human efficacy is the goal, the wheel or the computer is a practical invention, a perpetual motion machine is not.

That's all that's on the The Objectivism Research CDROM about "perpetual motion." If you want to bash Peikoff, go ahead. But smear without facts? Smear by claiming that these people say the exact opposite of what they clearly published? If you want to keep repeating crap post after post, there is a limit.

Here is what I think. It is not Rand who knows nothing about science. It is Bob who knows nothing about Rand. And very little about Peikoff.

Michael

EDIT: Here is what Rand said about dead stars in Atlas Shrugged:

p. 629

When the green light of a signal appeared by the track, it gave them a point to reach and pass, but—incongruous in the midst of the floating dissolution—it brought them no sense of relief. It seemed to come from a long since extinguished world, like those stars whose light remains after they are gone.

pp. 751-752

She raised her eyes to the plane. She watched the spread of its wings grow smaller in the sky, draining away in its wake the sound of its motor. It kept rising, wings first, like a long silver cross; then the curve of its motion went following the sky, dropping slowly closer to the earth; then it seemed not to move any longer, but only to shrink. She watched it like a star in the process of extinction, while it shrank from cross to dot to a burning spark which she was no longer certain of seeing. When she saw that that the spread of the sky was strewn with such sparks all over, she knew that the plane was gone.

That's all there is about dead stars. I searched both "star" and "stars" on the CDROM and looked at all the entries in Atlas Shrugged. So what do those excerpts have to do with "men relighting dead stars"? It's so easy to make stuff up. One thing is for sure. Your method of Rand criticism is anything but scientific. You said you owe me a citation. I will be waiting for one.

FURTHER EDIT: The word "relight" in all its variations is not even on the CDROM.

[Brant Gaede]

Galt's machine in Atlas is what Hitchcock described as a "McGuffen." Something in the story that makes the characters go.

We can posit that his machine might be something like hydro power. It's not perpetual motion but a system powered by the sun.

AR did enough technical research to make "Atlas" go except for someone unwilling to suspend disbelief. Bob suspended disbelief for that Spartan movie ("300") and enjoyed it and I assume he did much the same when he read "Atlas."

AR did not fall so much short on the technical stuff as she did on the human stuff.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

As living things can survive and run a normal life cycle in the universe, the possibility of this is what I believe is meant by "benevolent universe." I don't recall Rand saying this as strict ontology, anyway. I remember this more as a form of looking at life—a psychological starting point, so to speak.

I agree with Michael on this point. What Rand meant by "benevolent universe" is simply that reality is open to man’s success in general. I find no evidence to support the claim that Rand meant "benevolent universe" and "malevolent universe" in an ontological or religious sense, as if the universe were "looking out for man" vs. "out to get man."

Check out pp. 242-3 of OPAR for Peikoff’s take on “benevolent universe,” which is just a refurbished version of what he said in his 1976 lecture under Rand’s supervision. He says that reality is “benevolent” in the sense that “if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.” [emphasis added]

Here’s a possibly helpful note: because success depends on and flows from choosing to recognize and adapt to reality ("Reality, to be commanded, must be obeyed"), I think it’s useful and clarifying to call this attribute of the universe “conditional benevolence,” to contrast it with the “categorical benevolence” of a universe that supposedly cares about and wants to help man. The universe is such that, if you do X, then you can achieve Y.

I think that this is one of a number of ways in which Rand's "conditional" approach to life issues is signally superior to the "categorical" approach of Kantian thinking. (Yup, this is the gist of yet another book I would like to write!)

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Roger; Your statement in the last post is my understanding of the benevolent universe premise. Thanks so much.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Chris Grieb