Bashing Rand vs. Critiquing her Errors and Behavior

[John Dailey]

ADDENDUM:

~ Anyone care to...'add'...to this list? I'm sure other areas (hell: 'categories') can be...'crystallized' re what's already been, um, 'critiqued' about her behaviour, ad hoc commentings, interview-faux-pas's, clarified philosophical views (volition, induction, relation-of-facts-to-'logic', ignorance-of-history/anthropology/biology/quantum-mechanics/u-pick-it)...and, of course, sex.

~ Even Jefferson wasn't psycho-'analyzed' (dare I say 'psychologized'? Oops; she did such, but, no one else does) this much, scandal/gossip-wise.

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 15, 2008 by John Dailey

[Ellen Stuttle]

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.

It isn't my view that she "was a hypocrite [...] re being 'honest' about..."

1) "Her name's origin"

I think she was the source of the typewriter story, although clearly she can't have started that story at the time Fern Brown reports, since the Remington-Rand typewriter didn't exist then. However, my belief about why she started telling the story was that she wanted her real name kept secret during the Stalin era. She'd lost touch with her family, and worry about their safety was reasonable.

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

Who has said that?

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

You'd have to be specifc to provide a basis for assessing.

~ 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....

1) Her discussion of "what makes music 'MUSIC'" is in a formally philosophic essay; I don't know why you'd call it "'non-Philosophic.'"

2) Who says she was wrong that '"Cosmology should be thrown out of 'Philosophy' (as a proper subject.)"'?

~

How odd for you to post such a list. I thought you hated all such discussions as the one you're asking for.

Ellen

___

Edited January 15, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Roger Bissell]

GETTING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT...~ Rand was 'wrong' (whoopee!) about...2) Her argument that "Cosmology should be thrown out of 'Philosophy' (as a proper subject.)"

...

2) Who says she was wrong that '"Cosmology should be thrown out of 'Philosophy' (as a proper subject.)"'?

Good question!

But I think it was ~metaphysics~ in particular that Rand thought cosmology should be thrown out of. (Of course, throwing it out of philosophy will necessarily throw it out of metaphysics as well!)

Now, the answer to your question depends on whether you conceive of metaphysics -- i.e., the Objectivist metaphysics -- in minimal terms, as Rand did in her Journals, or in a more robust manner, as most philosophers do.

Minimalist metaphysics a la Rand holds that metaphysics is just the Law of Identity and its corollaries.

This means that ~any~ speculation about the nature of matter ~or~ consciousness is "out." In other words, metaphysicians cannot do arm-chair physics/cosmology -- except for vetoing models of matter or the universe that are logically incoherent. But neither can they do arm-chair psychology/philosophy of mind -- again, except for vetoing models of consciousness or of the mind that are logically incoherent.

So, how do Objectivists justify arguing for various tenets such as: the causal efficacy of consciousness, consciousness as metaphysically passive, etc., as Efron, Peikoff, and others do? If these are axiomatic, or at least corollaries of axioms, then where do they fit, if not in metaphysics?

I think that this is a fertile area for further work by philosophers sympathetic to Objectivism, but not hamstrung by the closed-system perspective.

I'd like to see a nice, tight argument for how all the axioms and corollaries fit together in and/or between metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, and the various sciences such as physics and psychology. The minimalist model of Objectivist metaphysics makes this a rather tricky enterprise! (I've previously done some writing on it in the old Atlantis list, but I'm not really satisfied with what I did there.)

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

John,

"To Whom It May Concern" was 1968. The last issue of The Objectivist was September, 1971. Her explanation was for discontinuing with the Brandens, not discontinuing The Objectivist.

Her last essay in The Objectivist, "Brief Summary" is a huge rant against several trends (like anarcho-capitalists) and especially Kant. It sandwiched in an essay from Peikoff called "Kant and Self-Sacrifice" and concluded with a couple of quotes from her previous writing.

Here is a quote from her essay:

If, on the positive basis of my philosophy, I may be permitted to express a negative consideration, as a consequence and a side issue, I would like to say, paraphrasing Ragnar Danneskjöld in Atlas Shrugged: "I've chosen a special mission of my own. I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. He died 167 years ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men's minds, we will not have a decent world to live in. (What man?) Immanuel Kant."

It is, therefore, appropriate that in the last issue of The Objectivist, I should offer you Leonard Peikoff's brilliant presentation of Kant's views on some of the central questions of morality. It is a condensed presentation, especially since it is excerpted from a fuller discussion, but it will be sufficient to give you a clear image of Kant's mentality and of its product.

Here are the two concluding paragraphs:

"There is no giant behind the devastation of the world—only a shriveled creature with the wizened face of a child who is out to blow up the kitchen because he cannot steal his cookies and eat them, too. 'Take a look at [him] now, when you face your last choice—and if you choose to perish, do so with full knowledge of how cheaply how small an enemy has claimed your life.' (Atlas Shrugged.)

"What is the weapon one needs to fight such an enemy? For once, it is I who will say that love is the answer—love in the actual meaning of the word, which is the opposite of the meaning they give it—love as a response to values, love of the good for being the good. If you hold on to the vision of any value you love—your mind, your work, your wife or husband, or your child—and remember that that is what the enemy is after, your shudder of rebellion will give you the moral fire, the courage and the intransigence needed in this battle. What fuel can support one's fire? Love for man at his highest potential." (Ayn Rand, "The Age of Envy," August 1971.)

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Thanks for the correction of the date of the Objectivist's closing and thanks for the quotes.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think that this is a fertile area for further work by philosophers sympathetic to Objectivism, but not hamstrung by the closed-system perspective.

I'd like to see a nice, tight argument for how all the axioms and corollaries fit together in and/or between metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, and the various sciences such as physics and psychology. The minimalist model of Objectivist metaphysics makes this a rather tricky enterprise! (I've previously done some writing on it in the old Atlantis list, but I'm not really satisfied with what I did there.)

REB

A very nice essay. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

I think it is the closed-system perspective that is the Achilles Heel of Objectivism as a respectable branch of philosophy, politics, ethics and aesthetics. Which is really a shame. Rand had some very valuable insights on many matters which have been tossed aside because of the closed-mindedness of her acolytes. Too many purges and too much vitriol have poisoned Objectivism for many folks. After the current generation of hard-liners dies off (I mean that quite literally) a day may come when Objectivism can be revisited by people without emotional issues and the really good stuff of Objectivism can be mined and brought to the surface. Think of a kind of neo-Objectivism with the narrowness and the errors of the original purged.

When the Peikfoffs and the Harrimans are safely buried, Objectivism can be properly rehabilitated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

This means that ~any~ speculation about the nature of matter ~or~ consciousness is "out." In other words, metaphysicians cannot do arm-chair physics/cosmology -- except for vetoing models of matter or the universe that are logically incoherent. But neither can they do arm-chair psychology/philosophy of mind -- again, except for vetoing models of consciousness or of the mind that are logically incoherent.

So what your saying is that someone with absolutely no training in "the nature of matter" can pronounce judgments as to the "logical coherence" of a theory developed by physicists who have spent their whole lives studying this phenomena? That doesn't seem right to me.

[sjw]

This means that ~any~ speculation about the nature of matter ~or~ consciousness is "out." In other words, metaphysicians cannot do arm-chair physics/cosmology -- except for vetoing models of matter or the universe that are logically incoherent. But neither can they do arm-chair psychology/philosophy of mind -- again, except for vetoing models of consciousness or of the mind that are logically incoherent.

So what your saying is that someone with absolutely no training in "the nature of matter" can pronounce judgments as to the "logical coherence" of a theory developed by physicists who have spent their whole lives studying this phenomena? That doesn't seem right to me.

I don't think there is such a thing as a person who has absolutely no training in the nature of matter!

It's always fair game to tell a physicist that such and such doesn't make sense because of such and such. Then if he's inclined he can explain. It's called "communication". Some physicists even write books for non-physicists to read!

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

This means that ~any~ speculation about the nature of matter ~or~ consciousness is "out." In other words, metaphysicians cannot do arm-chair physics/cosmology -- except for vetoing models of matter or the universe that are logically incoherent. But neither can they do arm-chair psychology/philosophy of mind -- again, except for vetoing models of consciousness or of the mind that are logically incoherent.

So what your saying is that someone with absolutely no training in "the nature of matter" can pronounce judgments as to the "logical coherence" of a theory developed by physicists who have spent their whole lives studying this phenomena? That doesn't seem right to me.

Any kid who has stumbled and skinned his/her knee has something cogent to say about matter. Cogent, but not necessarily deep. Knowing about matter is a matter(sic) of survival. Knowing its deep structure is useful and important, but not necessarily essential.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Any kid who has stumbled and skinned his/her knee has something cogent to say about matter. Cogent, but not necessarily deep. Knowing about matter is a matter(sic) of survival. Knowing its deep structure is useful and important, but not necessarily essential.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It may be a matter of survival for a boy scout to "know" about matter, but for the human race to survive it is essential to know about it's "deep" structure.

[BaalChatzaf]

Any kid who has stumbled and skinned his/her knee has something cogent to say about matter. Cogent, but not necessarily deep. Knowing about matter is a matter(sic) of survival. Knowing its deep structure is useful and important, but not necessarily essential.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It may be a matter of survival for a boy scout to "know" about matter, but for the human race to survive it is essential to know about it's "deep" structure.

Why? The human race (homo sapien sapien) has existed for between 250,000 and 500,000 years. Science capable of plumbing the depths of material reality has only existed for about 200 years. All that is necessary for our survival is the ability to ambush dumb beasts and dress in their fur and eat their flesh.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[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

Rand, flaws warts and all, gave us with libertarian and limited government inclinations a well needed shot in the arm and a boost to the spirit. Whatever other errors Rand committed, she did a good deal to discredit the "liberal" state first agenda that has been growing in our country since the time of Teddy Roosevelt (if not before). At the time of publication -Atlas Shrugged- was a kick-ass work of fiction and a call to arms. Think of it as Unweaving the Spell . For that I say -- thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 27, 2008 by BaalChatzaf