Bashing Rand vs. Critiquing her Errors and Behavior

[Roger Bissell]

Michael Kelly and James Heaps-Nelson have gone several rounds, arguing over whether or not Objectivist Living has become a haven of Rand-bashing. MSK better than anyone can point to considerable amounts of material on OL that is laudatory of Rand, while J H-N no doubt can cite an impressive amount of material attacking her.

One aspect of this topic that I'd like a little more clarity on -- and which might defuse some of the anger and tension on OL -- is to what extent J H-N is talking about the critiquing of Rand's bad behavior and bone-headed errors, as against the smearing of her character or intelligence.

For instance, while we may agree on particulars, a number of us think that Rand has made some really stupid or ignorant mistakes in her philosophy. Some have argued that she was an "ignoramus" about science and math. I have pointed out a particularly blatant piece of illogic in "Art and Cognition" where she discusses architecture and her definition of "art," as well as her ignorant claim that newborn babies are not yet capable of perception, and her muddled notion that our awareness of musical tones is "sensation."

There has probably been a great deal more of that kind of comment lately than examples of "good things about Ayn Rand." But is that tantamount to calling her a bad or stupid person? And is that any justification for branding Objectivist Living as Rand-Bashing Central?

REB

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael Kelly and James Heaps-Nelson have gone several rounds, arguing over whether or not Objectivist Living has become a haven of Rand-bashing. MSK better than anyone can point to considerable amounts of material on OL that is laudatory of Rand, while J H-N no doubt can cite an impressive amount of material attacking her.

One aspect of this topic that I'd like a little more clarity on -- and which might defuse some of the anger and tension on OL -- is to what extent J H-N is talking about the critiquing of Rand's bad behavior and bone-headed errors, as against the smearing of her character or intelligence.

For instance, while we may agree on particulars, a number of us think that Rand has made some really stupid or ignorant mistakes in her philosophy. Some have argued that she was an "ignoramus" about science and math. I have pointed out a particularly blatant piece of illogic in "Art and Cognition" where she discusses architecture and her definition of "art," as well as her ignorant claim that newborn babies are not yet capable of perception, and her muddled notion that our awareness of musical tones is "sensation."

There has probably been a great deal more of that kind of comment lately than examples of "good things about Ayn Rand." But is that tantamount to calling her a bad or stupid person? And is that any justification for branding Objectivist Living as Rand-Bashing Central?

REB

Just to say something good about Rand. She was dead on right about Capitalism. Also her presentation on Money (put in the mouth of Fransisco D.) was first rate.

Her theories of concept formation, formulated in the 50's and 60's were o.k. for what was known about the operation of the human brain -then-. We know a lot more now because of better instrumentation and technology.

Much more is known about perception now than then, particularly vision.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

Michael Kelley and James Heaps-Nelson have gone several rounds, arguing over whether or not Objectivist Living has become a haven of Rand-bashing. MSK better than anyone can point to considerable amounts of material on OL that is laudatory of Rand, while J H-N no doubt can cite an impressive amount of material attacking her.

One aspect of this topic that I'd like a little more clarity on -- and which might defuse some of the anger and tension on OL -- is to what extend J H-N is talking about the critiquing of Rand's bad behavior and bone-headed errors, as against the smearing of her character or intelligence.

For instance, while we may agree on particulars, a number of us think that Rand has made some really stupid or ignorant mistakes in her philosophy. Some have argued that she was an "ignoramus" about science and math. I have pointed out a particularly blatant piece of illogic in "Art and Cognition" where she discusses architecture and her definition of "art," as well as her ignorant claim that newborn babies are not yet capable of perception, and her muddled notion that our awareness of musical tones is "sensation."

There has probably been a great deal more of that kind of comment lately than examples of "good things about Ayn Rand." But is that tantamount to calling her a bad or stupid person? And is that any justification for branding Objectivist Living as Rand-Bashing Central?

REB

Just to say something good about Rand. She was dead on right about Capitalism. Also her presentation on Money (put in the mouth of Fransisco D.) was first rate.

Her theories of concept formation, formulated in the 50's and 60's were o.k. for what was known about the operation of the human brain -then-. We know a lot more now because of better instrumentation and technology.

Much more is known about perception now than then, particularly vision.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, I agree with your comments about Capitalism and Money -- even Concept-Formation (if I may continue the caps that you discontinued).

But regarding Perception -- sheesh, who needs scientific theory or experimental data? Just hold a newborn, and you can ~see~ that they are aware of entities, not just the Jamesian "bloomin', buzzin' confusion" of unintegrated sensations.

Perhaps my older daughter (now 29) was a bit exceptional, but I could tell at the age of 3 days (hers, not mine!) that she was perceiving objects. She even rotated her torso in order to track a particular object that drew her attention (the portable tv set, 2 feet away), no matter which way I turned my body while holding her.

When I saw that, I knew that Rand's uncritical echoing of James's view of infant perception was due to her ignorance and lack of experience. She may have been able to be a better and more prolific writer because of her decision not to have and care for babies, but it definitely robbed her of an experience that would have saved her from making a rather goofy blunder in her epistemology.

REB

P.S. -- And in saying this, I am ~not~ dissing Rand as a person or a philosopher. I am saying that, like all humans, she had blind spots resulting from her making choices that closed her off to certain potentially very useful information. (I happen to think that a number of other beneficial things would have resulted from Rand's having had children, but for details, you'll have to consult with the folks at Crosstime Traffic, c/o Harry Turtledove.)

[Rich Engle]

This isn't a Rand-bashing place. Look at what it's homepage description is sasying, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I think a lot of it is that sometimes people might phrase a little harshly, when less will suffice. But, it's often a pretty big deal for people to even get to the place where they are criticizing Rand. If they are on a Rand site, there's a pretty good chance they are because she has had impact on their lives. I've seen it come out a little funny.

And some people get upset when any/b] aspect of Rand is criticized. I've always said that Rand is a hero to me, and that heroes don't have to be perfect. As a matter of fact, if I ever found one, I'd be a touch suspicious.

Way too much energy goes into this site to reduce it to an AR bashing site--those are easy to find, for comparison's sake.

rde

Everything (God) ever makes has a little crack in it.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Rich Engle

[Steve Shmurak]

Roger,

I couldn't agree with you more that Rand missed a whole lot about human nature by not spending "quality time" ( ) with a newborn baby. Not only about perception did she miss the obvious but also about emotion. Infants show emotion immediately upon being born (and I'll bet inside the womb as well, after a certain state of development). And that is way before they are capable of abstract thinking involving language!

The emotions have a definite nature of their own apart from cognition. That is not to say they are somehow of a lower order, fighting with reason. However, they are already on the scene in a very powerful way at least from birth. Reason develops gradually and later in childhood.

But by then, emotion has integrated with lots of things -- actions, memories, habits, etc. There's a lot of one's personality, both good and bad traits, that forms before one can think conceptually, and some of it is very hard or impossible to change.

I give a detailed treatment of infant affect in my JARS article (Fall 06, v8 #1).

MSK also reviews my work here

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...p?showtopic=785

Steve Shmurak

Edited January 9, 2008 by Steve Shmurak

[Brant Gaede]

It is not what Ayn Rand was wrong about, it is what she was right about.

--Brant

[John Dailey]

~ Analyze, pro or con, a person's views, and one is 'critiquing' the correctness (or lack) of their beliefs...as to being worthwhile for one to accept. This is the stuff of worthwhile debates. --- Then there's mis-representation out of ignorance...or (as in a recent NR by a Novack) lies.

~ Analyze, pro or con, a person's behaviour, and one is praising or attacking ('smearing' is over-generalizing the import of one's attack) the person. This is the stuff, too much of, which be pedastalizing or dragging down an image of them, as a person; else, it's merely admiring or scandalizing (regardless the truth or falsity.) --- Then there's 2nd/3rd-hand gossip and pure speculation (usually 'scandal'-oriented.) --- All of this is the stuff of E! (as in the 'latest' tsk-tsking of Britney's jump into a papparazo car for ride home.)

~ As to how much of which re what-vs-who is done here on Rand...all readers can decide on their own. I see no point in arguing how much is too much of whichever...anymore.

LLAP

J:D

[Wolf DeVoon]

It is not what Ayn Rand was wrong about, it is what she was right about.

--Brant

Nice. Always a pleasure to read you.

I've been thinking about OL slightly differently, i.e., the interface. SOLO is gaudy and overblown graphically. Takes forever to load on a dial-up. Then there's the cult of personality. Maybe it's my my middle class second-rate brain that feels comfortable here at OL. I can speak my mind without toeing a party line, half of which I don't understand. The strength of OL is a lot like the free market. Lots of specialists, bunch of newbies, some old hands and very easy-going moderation.

Hey, Michael, how do I send a check to help pay the rent?

W.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[James Heaps-Nelson]

It's fine to criticize Rand, but I think a lot of the criticism generally (not here) is of the kind that can't be answered straightforwardly or accepted. It just kind of sits over in a corner and smells until somebody brings it out for show and tell. Now, my main complaint with Rand goes back to To Whom It May Concern. In that essay, she basically accuses 2 people of financial impropriety and offers no proof. Then she asked a whole bunch of people to take her side without evidence. In 1968, I would not have taken her side. I used to see some Maalox moments from orthodox Objectivists when I said basically, you can't do that and expect people to believe you.

Now, what would I have done in that case to render justice? I would have simply opened the books and said you're wrong, I'm asking for a retraction and given the gravity of the charges I don't consider your accusation lightly. That's what would have happened in a rational world. Instead what happened is that nobody said anything and everyone took potshots from fortified bunkers and talked about anything but proof or evidence about the real charges.

Everything else to me is just window dressing and beating around the bush. Even PARC makes a flimsy attempt to prove the TWIMC charges. There's a great big tapdance on all sides around that issue. Everything else is a side issue to be tackled separately and disappointing perhaps, but in a civil world mostly a private matter.

Jim

Edited January 9, 2008 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey, Michael, how do I send a check to help pay the rent?

Wolf,

LOL...

Thank for the thought. I wasn't dropping a hint in my other post. I really don't like politics and I think paying the rent is far more useful in today's world.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I have on occasion said to people that the two biggest shocks in 1968 were the riots in Washington DC and the Rand-Branden split. I can tell you were I was when I first heard the news.

I have to say that I found TWIMC provided some information and the Branden's statement even more. But I still did not know the real reason.

I did not find out that till later.

I was and remain critical of Nathaniel Branden's actions. I never felt the same way about Barbara.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's fine to criticize Rand, but I think a lot of the criticism generally (not here) is of the kind that can't be answered straightforwardly or accepted. It just kind of sits over in a corner and smells until somebody brings it out for show and tell. Now, my main complaint with Rand goes back to To Whom It May Concern. In that essay, she basically accuses 2 people of financial impropriety and offers no proof. Then she asked a whole bunch of people to take her side without evidence. In 1968, I would not have taken her side. I used to see some Maalox moments from orthodox Objectivists when I said basically, you can't do that and expect people to believe you.

Now, what would I have done in that case to render justice? I would have simply opened the books and said you're wrong, I'm asking for a retraction and given the gravity of the charges I don't consider your accusation lightly. That's what would have happened in a rational world. Instead what happened is that nobody said anything and everyone took potshots from fortified bunkers and talked about anything but proof or evidence about the real charges.

Everything else to me is just window dressing and beating around the bush. Even PARC makes a flimsy attempt to prove the TWIMC charges. There's a great big tapdance on all sides around that issue. Everything else is a side issue to be tackled separately and disappointing perhaps, but in a civil world mostly a private matter.

Jim

Jim,

One of the things -- possibly the main thing -- I find so frustrating about your way of delivering your opinions is that you're so characteristically vague, I'm left guessing as to what in particular you are talking about.

Here you say that in To Whom It May Concern, Rand "basically accuses 2 people of financial impropriety and offers no proof."

Well, that's one thing she did. But why do you describe this as "basically" what she did, as if there weren't any other charges made? Is it your actual point that this was the one charge which should have been taken with seriousness? That the rest should have been ignored? (Possibly you're forgetting what all the rest was?)

You then say, "in that case [you] would have simply opened the books and said you're wrong." Are you forgetting that the financial issue was answered in the replies by the Brandens? Is your point that you think they should have only addressed that issue and none of the other charges?

You then claim "Instead what happened is that nobody said anything and everyone took potshots from fortified bunkers and talked about anything but proof or evidence about the real charges [by which you're meaning the financial charges]."

Who are the "nobody" and the "everyone" who said nothing on that subject? It isn't true, to repeat, that even in print "nobody said anything." Something was said in the Brandens' replies. Or are you meaning, the O'ist world at large of the time? If the latter, again, you're factually wrong. Some people discussed the financial issue at length, and what do you know of what "everyone" did? Were you there? Rhetorical question; you weren't even born then.

You then say there's "a great big tapdance on all sides around that issue." Is there? I don't recall seeing that issue much mentioned by disputants on the various lists I've read. But aren't you presuming that because you think of that issue as the central one, everyone else ought to also and thus that others are "tapdancing" around it -- when possibly the truth of it is that others don't share your view of the financial issue's centrality?

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

Hey, Michael, how do I send a check to help pay the rent?

Wolf,

LOL...

Thank for the thought. I wasn't dropping a hint in my other post. I really don't like politics and I think paying the rent is far more useful in today's world.

Michael

Hey, I'm serious. I'd like to contribute $ to Objectivist Living. Preferably by check or debit card. How do I do it?

W.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

It's fine to criticize Rand, but I think a lot of the criticism generally (not here) is of the kind that can't be answered straightforwardly or accepted. It just kind of sits over in a corner and smells until somebody brings it out for show and tell. Now, my main complaint with Rand goes back to To Whom It May Concern. In that essay, she basically accuses 2 people of financial impropriety and offers no proof. Then she asked a whole bunch of people to take her side without evidence. In 1968, I would not have taken her side. I used to see some Maalox moments from orthodox Objectivists when I said basically, you can't do that and expect people to believe you.

Now, what would I have done in that case to render justice? I would have simply opened the books and said you're wrong, I'm asking for a retraction and given the gravity of the charges I don't consider your accusation lightly. That's what would have happened in a rational world. Instead what happened is that nobody said anything and everyone took potshots from fortified bunkers and talked about anything but proof or evidence about the real charges.

Everything else to me is just window dressing and beating around the bush. Even PARC makes a flimsy attempt to prove the TWIMC charges. There's a great big tapdance on all sides around that issue. Everything else is a side issue to be tackled separately and disappointing perhaps, but in a civil world mostly a private matter.

Jim

Jim,

One of the things -- possibly the main thing -- I find so frustrating about your way of delivering your opinions is that you're so characteristically vague, I'm left guessing as to what in particular you are talking about.

Here you say that in To Whom It May Concern, Rand "basically accuses 2 people of financial impropriety and offers no proof."

Well, that's one thing she did. But why do you describe this as "basically" what she did, as if there weren't any other charges made? Is it your actual point that this was the one charge which should have been taken with seriousness? That the rest should have been ignored? (Possibly you're forgetting what all the rest was?)

You then say, "in that case [you] would have simply opened the books and said you're wrong." Are you forgetting that the financial issue was answered in the replies by the Brandens? Is your point that you think they should have only addressed that issue and none of the other charges?

You then claim "Instead what happened is that nobody said anything and everyone took potshots from fortified bunkers and talked about anything but proof or evidence about the real charges [by which you're meaning the financial charges]."

Who are the "nobody" and the "everyone" who said nothing on that subject? It isn't true, to repeat, that even in print "nobody said anything." Something was said in the Brandens' replies. Or are you meaning, the O'ist world at large of the time? If the latter, again, you're factually wrong. Some people discussed the financial issue at length, and what do you know of what "everyone" did? Were you there? Rhetorical question; you weren't even born then.

You then say there's "a great big tapdance on all sides around that issue." Is there? I don't recall seeing that issue much mentioned by disputants on the various lists I've read. But aren't you presuming that because you think of that issue as the central one, everyone else ought to also and thus that others are "tapdancing" around it -- when possibly the truth of it is that others don't share your view of the financial issue's centrality?

Ellen

___

Ellen,

I'll grant you that most people I talk to think of The Affair and various permutations of what happened related to it as central, but if that's true where's the beef? Even if it was really bad, what does that have to do with the rest of the people in the movement? Ayn didn't mention it in the TWIMC article, why bring it up at all? All participants had to know there would be wildly different reactions to it by many people that wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. My first reaction on hearing about it well before reading PAR was to laugh and think good for her.

It just seems like it's private and not that important for people to know. I mean it would be ridiculous for all of us to wear our sexual histories on our sleeve and pretty boring outside a locker room context if you're not the two (or four) involved.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

One of the things -- possibly the main thing -- I find so frustrating about your way of delivering your opinions is that you're so characteristically vague, I'm left guessing as to what in particular you are talking about.

I'm sorry you feel frustrated. When I think it's likely that you'll have something to say about one of my posts in the future, I'll try to be more specific and provide more detail. I'm usually pressed for time, as I am now, so sometimes this is the best I can do.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

I'll grant you that most people I talk to think of The Affair and various permutations of what happened related to it as central, but if that's true where's the beef? Even if it was really bad, what does that have to do with the rest of the people in the movement? Ayn didn't mention it in the TWIMC article, why bring it up at all?

Here's why: because instead of mentioning it, what she did was to leave a gaping hole as to specifically what she was so tremendously incensed about. She refers to his shocking behavior in deliberately deceiving several persons over the course of several years, without providing particulars in regard to deceiving them about what. The way she makes it sound, he could have been cutting up bodies and hiding them somewhere, she makes the unnamed offense sound so enormous. Also she describes the document he gave her as so irrational she'd broken all personal contact with him. What did he say? Did he argue that Hitler was right or something? I mean, the descriptive language she used was appropriate to that magnitude of content.

I felt when I read the piece that it was obvious what she was hiding; it was sexual interest, why else the very inflamed language while performing a run around the need (to support her case) of providing details on the major charges? (By "major charges," I mean the general characterological charges, not the financial charge; the latter was "tacked on" as an "additional point.") I also thought that she'd been very foolish by in effect announcing to the whole world just what she was attempting not to reveal. She wanted him damned, but without specifics; yet the way she went about writing the piece pointed to the category of specifics which she didn't name.

My opinion is that the whole thing would have been no one's business and that most of the commotion which has resulted needn't have resulted, IF she had had the good sense to go through with her intitial intention of just writing a brief statement that she'd broken with him (and Barbara) and left it at that. SHE was the one who turned the affair into the world's business by the way she wrote her statement.

Ellen

___

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ellen,

I'll grant you that most people I talk to think of The Affair and various permutations of what happened related to it as central, but if that's true where's the beef? Even if it was really bad, what does that have to do with the rest of the people in the movement? Ayn didn't mention it in the TWIMC article, why bring it up at all?

Here's why: because instead of mentioning it, what she did was to leave a gaping hole as to specifically what she was so tremendously incensed about. She refers to his shocking behavior in deliberately deceiving several persons over the course of several years, without providing particulars in regard to deceiving them about what. The way she makes it sound, he could have been cutting up bodies and hiding them somewhere, she makes the unnamed offense sound so enormous. Also she describes the document he gave her as so irrational she'd broken all personal contact with him. What did he say? Did he argue that Hitler was right or something? I mean, the descriptive language she used was appropriate to that magnitude of content.

I felt when I read the piece that it was obvious what she was hiding; it was sexual interest, why else the very inflamed language while performing a run around the need (to support her case) of providing details on the major charges? (By "major charges," I mean the general characterological charges, not the financial charge; the latter was "tacked on" as an "additional point.") I also thought that she'd been very foolish by in effect announcing to the whole world just what she was attempting not to reveal. She wanted him damned, but without specifics; yet the way she went about writing the piece pointed to the category of specifics which she didn't name.

My opinion is that the whole thing would have been no one's business and that most of the commotion which has resulted needn't have resulted, IF she had had the good sense to go through with her intitial intention of just writing a brief statement that she'd broken with him (and Barbara) and left it at that. SHE was the one who turned the affair into the world's business by the way she wrote her statement.

Ellen

___

Thanks Ellen. This actually clarifies a lot for me. My wife tells me I tend to miss emotionally loaded content when I read it. I'll read it again and see if it comes off differently.

Jim

[John Dailey]

~ "There they go, again..."

LLAP

J:D

[Mike11]

P.S. -- And in saying this, I am ~not~ dissing Rand as a person or a philosopher. I am saying that, like all humans, she had blind spots resulting from her making choices that closed her off to certain potentially very useful information. (I happen to think that a number of other beneficial things would have resulted from Rand's having had children, but for details, you'll have to consult with the folks at Crosstime Traffic, c/o Harry Turtledove.)

Turtledove talked about Rand?

[Roger Bissell]

P.S. -- And in saying this, I am ~not~ dissing Rand as a person or a philosopher. I am saying that, like all humans, she had blind spots resulting from her making choices that closed her off to certain potentially very useful information. (I happen to think that a number of other beneficial things would have resulted from Rand's having had children, but for details, you'll have to consult with the folks at Crosstime Traffic, c/o Harry Turtledove.)

Turtledove talked about Rand?

No. This was an "inside," tongue-in-cheek comment for the enjoyment of those who are aware of Turtledove's writing alternate histories, alternate futures, and alternate universes. Crosstime Traffic is a series of alternate universe/alternate future novels, aimed at "young readers" (teenagers), and I have read about 5 or so of them to my now-13-year-old daughter for bedtime stories. She loves the stuff. :-)

Anyway, in another universe, different from ours, Ayn Rand would have chosen to have children ~and~ be a writer, and she would have been much wiser about certain issues, including the issue of perception in infants. That was my point.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey, I'm serious. I'd like to contribute $ to Objectivist Living. Preferably by check or debit card. How do I do it?

Wolf,

Since you so graciously stated this so openly, Kat added a PayPal donation button at the bottom of the page.

Thank you.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Hey, I'm serious. I'd like to contribute $ to Objectivist Living. Preferably by check or debit card. How do I do it?

Wolf,

Since you so graciously stated this so openly, Kat added a PayPal donation button at the bottom of the page.

Thank you.

Michael

Ta-da!

You just paid without exposing your financial information.

Receipt ID: 1KK546748T5569110

Okay, who's next?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

Much obliged.

When Kat gets home I will be able to examine it. I didn't get a copy of the Paypal code.

Michael

[John Dailey]

GETTING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT...

~ Rand was a hypocrite (Ha! Got her!) re being 'honest' about...

1) Her name's origin

2) Her views on receiving 'no help'...she considered worth as regarding as such.

3) Her love for her husband as being more than 'superficial.'

4) Her "To Whom It May Concern" 'explanation' for discontinuing THE OBJECTIVIST.

5) Her ad-libbed commentings on...misc.

~ Rand was 'wrong' (whoopee!) about...

1) Her (can we say 'non-Philosophic'?) ruminating analysis about what makes music 'MUSIC.'

2) Her argument that "Cosmology should be thrown out of 'Philosophy' (as a proper subject.)"

3) Her view that a female being a U.S. President is so too...t-o-o (and look what kind of female, fitting Rand's concern, we have running for it!)

4) ....ah-h-h-h....

~ I'm sure that many more things can be listed under other categories...which have already been covered IN THIS FORUM.

LLAP

J:D

[Brant Gaede]

Hey, I'm serious. I'd like to contribute $ to Objectivist Living. Preferably by check or debit card. How do I do it?

Wolf,

Since you so graciously stated this so openly, Kat added a PayPal donation button at the bottom of the page.

Thank you.

Michael

Ta-da!

You just paid without exposing your financial information.

Receipt ID: 1KK546748T5569110

Okay, who's next?

Moi! Moi! (Am I too late?)

--Brant