Is Objectivism Philosophy?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ay-yi-yi. All right, three comments on Ellen's three comments on my remarks....

Ay-yi-yi. One comment on one of Roger's three comments to my three comments to his three comments. The rest will have to wait. [Edit: On second thought, see #79 for further reply.]

1.

Three comments on Roger's remarks:

1. Mayhew did not state that Rand ever read Aristotle's Poetics.

I acknowledge that you aren't stating that I stated that Mayhew did state that Rand ever read Aristotle's Poetics. But just to be clear, I didn't state that.

"Just to be clear," here are your own words.

So people can judge for themselves, here's the entirety of Chapter 9 (also of the brief Chapter 10) of the Poetics, in the McKeon single-volume selection--the Random House Basic Works of Aristotle, published in 1941--which, according to Mayhew's report, Rand bought and began to read a couple years after she'd read Nock's Memoirs of a Superfluous Man.

Now, please tell me what the normal, attentive reader is supposed to derive from that comment, if not at least the implication or suggestion that Mayhew was saying Rand had read the Poetics? For that matter, why is it relevant for you to mention that "Rand bought and began to read" the McKeon edition of Aristotle's works at all, if (as Mayhew pointed out) she made no annotations in the Poetics, and that it is not even known whether or when she ever read the Poetics at all?

How good a reader is the "normal, attentive reader" presumed to be? I don't think I'd draw that implication unless I was reading rapidly. ;-) However, it's a defeasible implication. Why it was relevant to mention that Rand had bought and begun to read the McKeon edition is (1) to indicate that she did have access to that material, however much of it she might or might not have read; and (2) to indicate that the translation I was quoting is one she demonstrably could have read.

Ellen

___

Edited November 17, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Several quotes too far.

-Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Several quotes too far.

-Brant

I don't think so, since those quotes were needed for the immediate context. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Roger,

While I'm still up and still clear-headed enough, I'll reply to just a couple points more in your latest, but I'll have to wait on any further detailed reply until after the Thanksgiving bash.

I note your disagreement on point (2). I expect we'll end up still disagreeing on that one no matter how much we might discuss it.

3.

3. Cooper's slam/left-handed compliment(?) of Mayhew--"he works hard, through citing other passages in the Poetics, to find Aristotle nonetheless in substantial agreement with Rand's literary ideals"--seems a bit over-wrought.

It seems to me accurate to Mayhew's paper. Personally, what I find "a bit over-wrought" is the whole attempt to demonstrate that really Rand got it right here -- "if one is trained and comfortable with a relatively objective methodology" (your post #67). I also find the attempt relevant to the subject of this thread. Although this aesthethics sub-thread started as a tangent, with my wondering about the source of Chris G.'s opinion of The Magic Mountain, I think that interestingly the sub-thread has turned out to illustrate a mind-set in regard to Rand which isn't what I consider to be that of objective philosophic analysis. I think the objective thing to do in regard to Rand on Aristotle on aesthetics would be just to recognize in a straightforward way, with no need of apologetics, that she mistakenly thought Aristotle had proposed a principle which he didn't propose. From this basis one could then usefully compare/contrast Rand/Aristotle, instead of expending "ink" (cyber or otherwise) on attempting to tweak Aristotle into closer alignment with Rand than he was.

The reader might draw the inference, reading between the lines, that I am some kind of Randroid who wants to prove Rand right on everything. I know that OL readers know better than that, and I know Ellen knows better than that, yet she refers to "a mind-set in regard to Rand which isn't what I consider to be that of objective philosophic analysis" and "apologetics," which apparently does refer to me (among others?).

Ellen knows better than to think that you're "some kind of Randroid who wants to prove Rand right on everything." Changing to first person: however, I do think that you stretch things both in interpreting Aristotle's and Rand's approaches to aesthetics as more similar than they were and in interpreting Rand's theories of aesthetics as having been closer to what you find correct than I think her theories were. I've spoken about the latter before, on one of the art threads.

Some of the folks at that ARS meeting I think would at least plausibly qualify as "Randroids" or close thereto, with differing degrees of closeness.

But rather than get into "duelling mindsets" here (I often think some on OL are feverishly determined to prove Rand wrong, no matter what), I'd prefer to clarify my earlier comments.

A comment on your often thinking "some on OL are feverishly determined to prove Rand wrong, no matter what":

I think it could look that way, although it's my belief that no one here really is out "to prove Rand wrong, no matter what." Some here, though -- I'm one of them -- think that there is quite a lot wrong in Rand's explicit philosophizing. I give Rand very high marks as an artist -- and as a visionary, a description you used in an earlier post. I think the strength of her vision is what most appeals to people and that then, often, those people believe that she was a better philosopher than she was. I think that if what's good in her vision is to end up having its maximally beneficial potential results, the philosophy needs strenuous re-working. Thus I become frustrated when I feel that instead of people's putting their minds to the task of doing the re-working, they try to defend what she wrote as it is.

Also, by the way, when I referred to "objective methodology," I was not referring to Rand, I was referring to Albert Nock!

I understood that you were referring to Nock. On that one I'll grant that my wording was bad, since it could easily have been taken to seem that I thought you were referring to Rand.

All for now.

Ellen

___

Edited November 17, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Roger Bissell]

A comment on your often thinking "some on OL are feverishly determined to prove Rand wrong, no matter what":

I think it could look that way, although it's my belief that no one here really is out "to prove Rand wrong, no matter what." Some here, though -- I'm one of them -- think that there is quite a lot wrong in Rand's explicit philosophizing. I give Rand very high marks as an artist -- and as a visionary, a description you used in an earlier post. I think the strength of her vision is what most appeals to people and that then, often, those people believe that she was a better philosopher than she was. I think that if what's good in her vision is to end up having its maximally beneficial potential results, the philosophy needs strenuous re-working. Thus I become frustrated when I feel that instead of people's putting their minds to the task of doing the re-working, they try to defend what she wrote as it is.

Ellen, I'm sorry for whatever frustration I caused you. I agree emphatically that "there is quite a lot wrong in Rand's explicit philosophizing" and that "the philosophy needs strenuous re-working," and I have for years been engaged in doing that, on various fronts, with varying degrees of success. You and I clearly disagree over where some of the errors lie, and/or what must be done to fix them, and if you multiply these discrepancies by a thousandfold--or a hundredfold, depending on how many active intellectuals want Objectivism's vital core to be taken to a higher level of integrity and truth to reality--it's easy to see where a lot of the turbulence on Rand discussion lists comes from.

In the spirit of the Holidays, I'm going to drop this topic and allow the considerable airing of differing views or interpretations to stand for others to peruse. (Plus, I have a lot to do!) Perhaps these contentious threads will, in some significant way, be part of the input that helps a future intellectual write the "new, improved Objectivism" that is also informed by a better attending to science and scholarship.

REB

[Dragonfly]

"If the characters of a novel engage in lengthy abstract discussions of their ideas, but their ideas do not affect their actions or the events of the story, it is a bad novel. An example of that kind is The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann. Its characters periodically interrupt the story to philosophize about life, after which the story—or lack of it—goes on."

Alfonso

This can also be found in The Romantic Manifesto, in the chapter on 5. Basic Principles of Literature.

And that information can already be found in my post #59...

[Ellen Stuttle]

In the spirit of the Holidays, I'm going to drop this topic and allow the considerable airing of differing views or interpretations to stand for others to peruse. (Plus, I have a lot to do!) Perhaps these contentious threads will, in some significant way, be part of the input that helps a future intellectual write the "new, improved Objectivism" that is also informed by a better attending to science and scholarship.

Amen, Roger. With that spirit and with that "perhaps," I entirely agree!

Cheers, and Happy T-Day,

Ellen

___

[Mike11]

Farewell to Objectivism

1) I came to a frightening realisation a few days ago, one which hit the core of who I consider myself to be. It would have been utterly impossible to dissuade me from my stance on the origens, meaning and relevance of Objectivism as I have become as dogmatic in my beliefs as Leonard Piekoff is in his. Having spent my time learning about Objectivism in a strong pro-ARI environment there was no one with whom I could rationally speak to about my growing concerns about Objectivism. I left the ARI circle and tried to start a campus TOC club, these attempts fell on deaf ears as I never heard back from the organisation despite having started with about a dozen interested people. With ARI idiocy on one side and no where else to go my concerns quickly became my final beliefs on the matter This was followed by a brief period of "owning" Objectivists; I grew to expect and enjoy the resulting ego trip. Like Rand being corrupted by so many young followers or Piekoff working as her "intellectual heir" I began to think of myself as being on a higher intellectual plane.

I fear I have become as corrupt as those I oppose and will therefore not be returning to the movement.

2) The ARI owns the airwaves of Objectivism and its fanaticism drowns out more rational cool headed voices. If a rational Objectivism is to survive it must stop feeding off ARI recruits and aggressivly move into the mainstream. Objectivism does best as a multifaceted cultural movement and current technology favours this approach. It must be disseminated through the academia and through wider artistic culture but in order to do so its dominant approach must be broken.

This has always been a movement geared toward fanatics. Environmentalism, Socialism, Post Modernism, Muslims are all cast in the most extreme form and are thus attacked while the vast majority of centrists drift on untouched, and if they do see they are pushed further in the opposite direction. I believe this strategy may be working in some way as most who encounter and take up the ARI stance are themselves fanatics.

The center must be taken up on its own terms. Zero Sum apocalyptic games do not appeal to the majority of people, Objectivism rightly appears as a paranoid fantasy world of angels and demons to them. The movement must be taken out of its extreme apacolpytic mind set and become more mundane in its criticisms for its core to shine through.

A pity I can not allow myself to participate.

That is all I have to say.

Regards to all of you.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Mike11

[Chris Grieb]

Mike11; I have not followed this forum as closely as I should but I am sorry to see you leave.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike11,

Boy did you ever come to the wrong place!

I am glad we have had an impact on your dogma. After the shock wears off, you might notice that OL is not a part of any Objectivist movement. It is merely a forum where people interested in Objectivism can discuss Objectivist ideas and collateral issues, or just hang out with those who like to. Beginners can learn some things about Objectivism here and we comment on some of the main Objectivist events, but that is about as close to a movement as we come.

Even if you never think about an Objectivist idea again, I am pleased to have known you since you have been public about recapturing the drive to think for yourself. That is a precious drive and one should never hand it over to anyone.

(There is an exception: If you are in the beginning stages of learning a new skill or new subject, you should make your mind like a sponge and soak up the knowledge, not contest the source—but even then, the suspension of being critical or harboring new ideas in that phase should come from a conscious choice that can be suspended at will, and of course, after it is over, you go back to being you.)

It is inspiring to see a person throw off dogma and assume his gift from reality and ultimate responsibility to himself: his independent mind. Your complaints about ARI are so very small compared to the grandness of your decision to let go of your own dogmatic thinking.

You have a good path, Mike. Some of it may not be easy or pleasant, but it is yours. Keep it. It's worth it.

All happiness to you.

We will still be here if you ever decide to return.

Michael

[Newberry]

"Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now, alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you..." Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzche