Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[merjet]

If no one takes PARC seriously any more, why does this topic run 31 pages?

I presume that these are actual questions and not the kind of rhetoric where you make a statement but dress it up as a question. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

Maybe you missed the point of Marotta's question. The thread title is 'Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore'. The fact that the topic ran on old Solo for a long time, has run 31 pages here, continues to run on SoloPassion, and has no foreseeable death is weighty evidence that somebody still takes PARC seriously.

P.S. If you want to make your evaluation of PARC available to a wider audience in a far more digestible way, then write a review and put it on Amazon.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Merlin Jetton

[Ellen Stuttle]

William,

Thanks for posting on SOLO -- here -- a link to Hospers' recollections in "Full Context":

http://www.fullcontext.org/backissues/Memo...of_Ayn_Rand.htm

Hospers' remarks in the "Full Context" piece are quite similar to his longer 1990 "Conversations With Ayn Rand" in Liberty. Some sections have been shortened; in others he's added some details.

James Valliant is truly reading with his head in the sand in claiming that there aren't details provided from which we can get a good idea both of how Ayn reacted to disagreements from persons close to her and of what specifically happened at the philosophy meeting after which she broke with Hospers.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe you missed the point of Marotta's question. The thread title is 'Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore'. The fact that the topic ran on old Solo for a long time, has run 31 pages here, continues to run on SoloPassion, and has no foreseeable death is weighty evidence that somebody still takes PARC seriously.

Merlin,

Strangely enough, I cut out my mention of this when I shortened my post. (I do ramble at times.) Here is the reasoning I cut out.

On a micro level, it is true that some people are still taking PARC seriously. But this is the same attention doctors pay to an infected person who is in quarantine. There is a time limitation on their interest: either the patient gets better or he dies. Then the information goes on file and their interest in that case wanes. This is the behavior of the people presently discussing PARC. Once the disease has been fully exposed and remedy applied, PARC will go into the trash-bin of history and even the people presently discussing it will no longer take it seriously.

On a big picture level, roughly 6,500,000,000 people in relation to about 24 people or so is enough justification for me to use the word "nobody" on a public issue. Let's make a better visual:

6,500,000,000

24

What do you think a pie chart of this would look like?

Also, when all this crap started, in O-Land there were countless pro-PARC websites as opposed to only one site against PARC. Now the author is holed up in one (Solo Passion) and the one against (OL) is the main source of intelligent Objectivism-friendly people actually examining the issues in PARC. There are a few other places against PARC, but they are not really part of O-Land, but instead part of the critics.

In essence, except for these few tiny pockets, no one actually does take PARC seriously anymore.

I have no problem with the slight inaccuracy. It will eventually be 100% true.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

After this thing goes on for a little longer, I think it will be worth the effort to take several of William's posts to Valliant and make a compilation of the places where he puts facts side-by-side with Valliant's writing. If William or someone else doesn't do that, I might do it.

William is doing one hell of a great job of scholarship that is devastating Valliant's credibility. This is similar to what Neil did, but with different particulars.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Ellen

(Quote: Ellen Stuttle) James Valliant is truly reading with his head in the sand in claiming that there aren't details provided from which we can get a good idea both of how Ayn reacted to disagreements from persons close to her and of what specifically happened at the philosophy meeting after which she broke with Hospers.

And Valliant's point that Rand's dealings with those who left her (such as the Blumenthals and the Kalbermans) don't "shed light" on what happened with respect to Dr. Hospers is far-fetched.

The accounts of Rand by people who knew her over decades support the general description of her by "the Brandens" as well.

Finally, Valliant's claim that Rand's friendship with Deems Taylor, Spillane, von Mises (or recommending Paterson's book) undercuts the negative portayal of Rand by Hospers or "the Brandens" isn't persuasive. The point is that the closer one got to Rand, the more she required allegiance.

-NEIL

____

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

For example, Valliant recently misrepresented what Hospers says as well as the time of the break with the Blumenthals and the Kalbermans.

How about this:

Professor John Hospers, according to the Brandens, was taken to task for certain “sarcastic” and “professorial” criticisms of Rand in a classroom setting, although, once again, neither of the Brandens chooses to relate any of the specifics. Although still unable to provide the relevant details, Hospers himself was more forthcoming, although hardly satisfying.

In a 1990 interview, Hospers said that he was merely being “challengingly exegetical if not openly critical of Rand,” but he was still no more obliging than the Brandens had been about the content of that challenge. However, eight years later, Hospers admitted that it had included certain “mild criticisms” of Objectivism.

1. He misquotes Nathaniel Branden (NB wrote that Hospers "challenge[d] her viewpoint with the kind of gentle sarcasm professors take for granted and Ayn found appalling.");

2. He attributes what Nathaniel said to Barbara;

3. He states it was a classroom setting when it was a professional conference;

4. Says it was an interview when it was a memoir; and

5. Misquotes Dr. Hospers (he didn't say "challengingly exegetical if not openly critical of Rand").

Five mistakes in four sentences. Reading problem, anyone?

(Also, he implies that the Brandens and Dr. Hospers are deliberately withholding information, without any proof.)

-NEIL

_____

Edited June 26, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

Actually, it looks like there are six mistakes.

Here is what Hospers said in 1998:

By tradition, commentators make criticisms. Mine, I thought, were mild as criticisms go. I wondered publicly about whether every work of art (even mediocre ones) carries with it a sense of life; I mentioned Ayn’s own example of Dinesen (fine writing, but an awful sense of life); I speculated about whether to any extent what we say about sense of life depends on the language we use to characterize it ("emotive meaning" again).

It isn't fair to write that Dr. Hospers said he made "mild criticisms" of "Objectivism."

Edited June 27, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's get one thing clear.

Vallaint to William:

The extent of your own hyperbole, though worthy of notice, is nothing compared to the hysterical vitriol of some others, but have I been so demonized and dehumanized by the enemies of PARC that I am no longer permitted such feelings in your worldview?

That is so wrong! This guy never gets it right, even when you hand it to him on a silver platter and people complain about you being too obvious and repetitious.

Nobody I know of thinks Valliant is a demon, nor do they think he is inhuman. At least I haven't read anything along those lines. The above bout of self-pity shows just how human he can be in a weak moment.

Here is an accurate description clearly stated. I will use my own word, but the concept is the same in almost everything I have read from Valliant's critics. They just call it something else. Here goes:

James Valliant is a bonehead.

Not demon. Not inhuman.

Bonehead.

There's a world of difference.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike quotes James Valliant:

... have I been so demonized and dehumanized by the enemies of PARC that I am no longer permitted such feelings in your worldview?

Waaaaaah! Waaaaahhhh! Poor lamb, so "demonized and dehumanized"! All this "personal hostility" from those terrible "enemies" has hurt his feelings!

This, from the man who wrote a whole book about how Nathaniel Branden has the "soul of a rapist."

Edited June 27, 2008 by Daniel Barnes

[william.scherk]

Mike quotes James Valliant:

... have I been so demonized and dehumanized by the enemies of PARC that I am no longer permitted such feelings in your worldview?

Waaaaaah! Waaaaahhhh! Poor lamb, so "demonized and dehumanized"! All this "personal hostility" from those terrible "enemies" has hurt his feelings!

This, from the man who wrote a whole book about how Nathaniel Branden has the "soul of a rapist."

I want to leave our Hospers discussion there, with both James and I having said our pieces. Can you parse out, Daniel, what he means by 'such feelings'? I am hoping he means that he also feels sad about the Hospers break with Rand. I hope against hope that he does not mean I have hurt his feelings -- I may have to ask.

-- with regard to some presumed civility I have breached in my last post, he finds nothing much more than that I called him 'sniffy.' Such vitriol.

Edited June 27, 2008 by william.scherk

[Daniel Barnes]

Can you parse out, Daniel, what he means by 'such feelings'? I am hoping he means that he also feels sad about the Hospers break with Rand

I took it to mean that too, but it's typically overwrought and convoluted, so it's hard to say. What is clear, however, is that he seems to think he is being hurtfully "demonized and dehumanized", poor fellow!

Edited June 27, 2008 by Daniel Barnes

[Neil Parille]

I want to correct something I said above. I don't think there is a 1998 Liberty article by Dr. Hospers. I confused it with the 1998 Full Context Article, the link which Ellen posted above.

[merjet]

On a big picture level, roughly 6,500,000,000 people in relation to about 24 people or so is enough justification for me to use the word "nobody" on a public issue. Let's make a better visual:

6,500,000,000

24

What do you think a pie chart of this would look like?

[snip]

I have no problem with the slight inaccuracy. It will eventually be 100% true.

Well, the cat's out of the bag. You don't "walk the talk" on precision. Also, on the scale you use here nobody EVER took PARC seriously.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

Little picture...

Big picture...

Context...

On big picture I allow some leeway. So I guess I don't "walk the talk" in that context.

Busted...

Michael

[merjet]

MSK, thank you for the chuckle.

Do I get to impose the sentence? I will be lenient, and may even pardon.

[Ellen Stuttle]

In his attempts to demonstrate the untruth of claims that Ayn didn't well tolerate disagreement from close associates, Valliant keeps referencing, among other examples, Mary Ann and the Cézanne. The factor he leaves out there is how Mary Ann approached the issue: Please, Ayn, help me understand. Not: Ayn, I think you're wrong.

Hospers makes an obvservation relevant to the difference in approach:

"Conversations With Ayn Rand"

Liberty

Volume 4, Number 1

September 1990, pg. 42

But she never did [write articles to submit to professional journals]. She did not want to enter the arena of public give-and-take with them. She wanted them to come to her. What she wanted of philosophers, other than recognition, is not easy to say. I am sure she would have cursed them soundly if they offered criticisms. Even a mild criticism would often send her to the stratosphere in anger.

At the same time, I must add, she would often tolerate criticism, even revel in responding to it, if (1) it was given "in the right spirit" (the vibes had to be non-hostile) and (2) it was sort of "on the right track"--the sort of thing that could be said by someone who was "on his way tot he truth" but hadn't yet arrived there; then she would "correct him" painstakingly and in detail.

Hospers is specifically speaking of "criticism," which isn't identical to "disagreement." Still, his remarks are pertinent. The "spirit" in which someone expressed a disagreement -- whether a person evidenced a desire to be instructed or not -- made a difference to how she'd respond.

Joan Blumenthal, unlike Mary Ann, ran into difficulties in discussions of differences with Ayn. Here's an indicative passage from the interview with Joan Blumenthal in "Full Context." It doesn't go into how very strained the Blumenthals came to find their relationship with Ayn in the final years before they left; but it gives some hints of areas which became problematic.

(I, btw, happened to be attending the lecture Joan stomped out of because of remarks Leonard Peikoff made about Rembrandt. I don't remember what Leonard said, and I didn't know at the time why Joan suddenly exited in a swirl, obviously furious. I recall that she was dressed in painter's garb; she hadn't had time to change before the lecture. At the break she was sitting cross-legged on a long buffet table in the large hall area outside the lecture room, expostulating animatedly to a group standing around her. She was very ticked-off. I still chuckle remembering how fired up she was.)

"Full Context," March 1993

Interview with Joan Mitchell Blumenthal

by Karen Reedstrom

pp. 7-8

Q: What did Ayn Rand think of impressionism and why?

Blumenthal: She disliked it very much. It went against her idea of conceptual art (which is a complicated subject about which we all could disagree). She thought that the juxtaposition of colors into non-defined areas and the intrusion of atmosphere indicated a poor psycho-epistemology. That's what she told me. She also thought it was naturalistic. I've already indicated that I don't agree with most of that. And I don't think it's naturalistic either for the most part.

Q: So do you think it was just a personal thing that she had that she tried to apply a general aesthetic principle on?

Blumenthal: Well, there were things that she personally liked. Those she elevated to the good. She was particularly enamored of the style she called conceptual, which is a little difficult to describe. It's easier to see it but it's clearly demarcated edges and clear demarcations within the form, no gradual gradations. I can hardly think of anything more opposite to impressionism. So it's not surprising that she didn't like it and that she thought it indicated a poor psycho-epistemology. That was something she said about things she didn't like. She didn't like Rembrandt. In that case I felt very, very alienated because Rembrandt did not have a poor any kind of epistemology, psycho or otherwise. He absolutely knew what he was doing.

Q:: It seems that he really saw the figure as the most important thing, and he made it dramatic.

Blumenthal: He's very selective in his use of lights and darks. He's almost more psychologically insightful than anyone. Also he did beautiful landscapes. And what Ayn Rand held against him was the side of beef painting--which is absurd! If you're evaluating an artist, you have to look over the whole work. The side of beef was something she did not understand. It's a 17th century subject that had particular meaning for its day. He did it very well, but Ayn did not understand its meaning.

Q: So she didn't understand the context of the artist or look any deeper, but just gave a judgment?

Blumenthal: Yes, sometimes. She had an enormous tendency to judge things by style. I'm very content oriented, so I was aware of it. But she had a really great love for the style that she called conceptual, and when it was not present, it was hard for her to like anything. She was personally very generous to me about my art. I wish she had been more generous to great artists.

Q: Did you like impressionism back then when you knew her?

Blumenthal: Oh, yes; I've always liked impressionism.

Q: Did you ever argue with her about it.

Blumenthal: Uh huh. Many times.

Q: I guess you couldn't come to any kind of agreement?

Blumenthal: No, we couldn't come to any agreement about painting or about the other arts, usually, which is not to say that we didn't have areas of agreement. We did, but the areas of disagreement were greater. I am very impressed with her definition of art. I've heard hundreds of them, and I've never heard one that's as good, nor can I conceive of one that would be any better. I am definitely not in a position to disagree about literature, because I'm not well acquainted with it. We had countless discussions about painting, music, sculpture, ballet, and poetry. Often we would agree in principle--if the principle was broad enough, but rarely in application. We did have different levels of knowledge, that seemed to matter. She knew much more about literature but she didn't know much about the other arts. Clearly we were looking for different things. For example, I love Bach. Obviously, Ayn didn't. And she thought that Mozart was pre-music!

Q: I disagree.

Blumenthal: That's what she said. I love Michelangelo. She thought he was malevolent, Now, there is a streak of malevolence, according to the way Ayn saw things, but it seems to me utterly irrelevant compared to the grandeur of Michelangelo, the huge scale of his view of humanity and so on. But she thought he was malevolent and that was the most important thing to her.

Q: Even The David?

Blumenthal: I don't remember what she thought about The David particularly. That would be, I suppose, more innocuous in her eyes. But I don't want to second-guess her. I do remember telling her once what I saw in the Roman The Pieta, but she couldn't get past the subject. I was seeing beyond the subject.

Anyway, I like many styles and, as I say, I'm content-oriented. I thought the content of ballet was far broader than she did. I think Shakespeare is a great poet. She liked Kipling. So there was a lot of aesthetic disagreement. I walked out of the lecture in which Leonard Peikoff was saying something unpleasant about Rembrandt. I just couldnt' stand for it anymore. I felt like I was betraying my values.

Q: What would you like to add to Rand's aesthetic theory?

Blumenthal: I've never thought of adding to Ayn's aesthetic theories. I'm not a aesthetician. If I were I would embrace her definition of art and start from scratch everywhere else.

.

___

[Neil Parille]

Rand's attitude toward disagreement appeared to depend on the person involved, the topic and the manner the disagreement was expressed.

Rand might not have minded that Peikoff liked jazz, but does Valliant think that if Peikoff raised this dispute in public (or in private) and suggested that it showed a flaw in Rand's aesthetic theory that Rand wouldn't have hit the roof?

Hospers' account is quite detailed and it's hard to imagine that he so misunderstood Rand's attitude and what she was starting to expect from him.

The more time elapsed, the more the vise tightened. I could see it happening; I hated and dreaded it; but knowing her personality, I saw no way to stop it. I was sure that something unpleasant would happen sooner or later. The more time she expended on you, the more dedication and devotion she demanded. After she had (in her view) dispelled objections to her views, she would tolerate no more of them. Any hint of thinking as one formerly had, any suggestion that one had backtracked or still believed some of the things one had assented to previously, was greeted with indignation, impatience, and anger.

What Hospers wrote is also consistent with what others have said as well.

And why doesn't Valliant tell us what his research has revealed about the split?

As a final point, Valliant claimed in PARC that Hospers was one of Barbara's friends who contributed to the "collective best shot" against Rand. Now he says he doesn't question Hospers' honesty and isn't trying to "poison the well"!

-NEIL

____

Edited June 27, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Jonathan]

Rand's comments on canceling people's subscriptions to her publications has been mentioned on this thread, and I recently dug out a few old tapes, including the one with the Q&A session from her November, 1971, Ford Hall Forum talk, The Moratorium on Brains, which contains the answer about the subscriptions.

I remember having winced at some of the answers she gave at her various talks, especially when it came to her thoughts on art, gender and sexuality, among other things, but as I now listen to the tapes again after having not heard them in years, there seems to be a lot more unjustified judgments and anger, smug dismissals of others and their work or ideas, and garbled self-contradictions (like her answer to the question, after her The Age of Mediocrity talk in 1981, about why architecture can be art while also being utilitarian) than I remembered from my first listenings years ago.

Anyway, as I'm listening to the Q&A from The Moratorium on Brains talk, this answer stands out as a good example of the type that makes me wince:

Moderator [repeating a questioner's question]:

Will you commment upon the statement that ethics no longer requires saints, a statement attributed to a group of students who are believers in Objectivism.

Rand:

Uh, doesn't require what?

Moderator:

Saints.

Rand:

Saints! [Audience laughter] I know as little about such nonsense as I do about any such group, and if you have observed how carefully I try not to sanction, not to permit the sanction of my name to be stolen by any group, to the point where I may have to offend innocent young people trying to study Objectivism rather than sanction the guilty ones. In an intellectual matter it matters, and this kind of issue is the perfect proof of it.

What on earth do they mean by being students of Objectivism if that is what they do? It is too early for them, until they have really learned it, to talk about moral pronouncements. You graduate from being a student when you no longer have to use the name of your teacher. They do not have... [Audience applause] My main objection, and I hope this information will be transmitted to whomever it might concern, my objection to all groups of this kind is a follows: There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas, provided you give appropriate credit. You can make any mixture of ideas that you want, the contradiction will be yours. [Audience laughter] But WHY do you NEED the NAME [Rand sounding kind of shrill here] of someone with whom you do not agree, in order to spread your misunderstandings, or worse, your nonsense and falsehood?

I don't know what the concept of a saint means. If it means, in the strictest sense, a religious figure, then how could it ever be to Objectivism - Objectivism is an atheist philosophy, we do not recognize saints, angels or... [audience laughter and applause] ...or God. But the word has also been used in a secular term. By "saint," people often mean a person of perfect moral character, or a moral hero, and that is what Objectivism requires of its first novices, just of the buck privates, we don't want anybody bad[?] saints[?] in the moral sense, which is open to each man according to the extent of his abilities.

But, please, anything which you do not hear from me, or read under my name, DO NOT accept it as in ANY WAY emanating from or representing Objectivism. If you want to know what Objectivism is learn it from me and my publications. Nobody else is authorized to speak for me. And if he doesn't want to speak for himself, then you know what to think of him.

Interesting, isn't it, that Rand doesn't even know what the Objectivist students had said about ethics and saints, or in what context they said it, to whom or which arguments they may or may not have been replying, or if the Ford Hall questioner was giving Rand an accurate representation of what the students had said -- their argument may have been exactly the same as Rand's view that Objectivism is an atheist philosophy and doesn't recognize saints, angels or gods, and that a rational ethics doesn't require them -- yet, without knowing any of the details, she implies that the students are "guilty ones" who have "stolen" the sanction of her name, she denounces their views as contradictory nonsense, misuderstandings and falsehoods, and she quite strongly disassociates herself, and Objectivism, from them?

J

[Robert Campbell]

Jonathan,

Here's how the same quote appears, after editing by Bob Mayhew.

I heard from a group of students of Objectivism that ethics no longer requires saints. Could you comment?

I have tried very carefully not to sanction any group, so that I sometimes offend innocent students of Objectivism rather than sanction a single guilty one. In intellectual matters, this is important. Why are they students, if this is what they do? Until they really learn Objectivism, it's too early for them to make moral pronouncements. You graduate from being a student when you no longer have to use the name of your teacher. They are not helping Objectivism.

There is nothing wrong in using my ideas, provided you give me credit. You can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why name someone with whom you disagree in order to spread your misunderstandings or falsehoods?

Now, to what does the concept "saint" refer? If it refers to a religious figure, it can't be appropriate to Objectivism, which is an atheistic philosophy. But the word also has a secular usage: "saint" means a person of perfect moral character—a moral hero—and that is what Objectivism requires of its novices and its buck privates. I want nobody but saints, in the moral sense. This is open to each man according to his ability.

Do not accept anything that didn't come from me as in any way representing Objectivism. If you want to know what Objectivism is, learn it from me and my publications. Nobody else can speak for me—and if he doesn't want to speak for himself, you know what to think of him. (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 131)

Compared to the item on canceling subscriptions, Dr. Mayhew hasn't tampered with this one nearly so much. Still, he seems to have purposely softened the harshness of it, and inserted a whole sentence not in the original ("They are not helping Objectivism"). He also substitutes the language that she might have used in her monograph on Objectivist epistemology for the less technical manner of speaking about concepts that she actually employed.

I've found the quote interesting for two reasons:

(1) Rand flatly presents the alternatives as being an Objectivist or being irrational.

(2) What's gotten her so wound up is what she takes to be an attack on her notion of moral perfection. (Which, of course, may not have been the actual intention of whoever it was.)

But the more you think about what she's saying here, the more problems it poses.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

The editing that Mayhew has done goes quite beyond what he admits:

(Rand) But, please, anything which you do not hear from me, or read under my name, DO NOT accept it as in ANY WAY emanating from or representing Objectivism. If you want to know what Objectivism is learn it from me and my publications. Nobody else is authorized to speak for me. And if he doesn't want to speak for himself, then you know what to think of him.

(Rand as quoted by Mayhew) Do not accept anything that didn't come from me as in any way representing Objectivism. If you want to know what Objectivism is, learn it from me and my publications. Nobody else can speak for me—and if he doesn't want to speak for himself, you know what to think of him.

(Rand) There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas, provided you give appropriate credit. You can make any mixture of ideas that you want, the contradiction will be yours. [Audience laughter] But WHY do you NEED the NAME [Rand sounding kind of shrill here] of someone with whom you do not agree, in order to spread your misunderstandings, or worse, your nonsense and falsehood?

(Rand as quoted by Mayhew) There is nothing wrong in using my ideas, provided you give me credit. You can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why name someone with whom you disagree in order to spread your misunderstandings or falsehoods?

Perhaps Valliant, who gets so hot under the collar about the Smiths changing one line in one performance (which then disappeared into the air) will tell us why this doesn't constitute a "systematic and personal betrayal" of Rand.

-NEIL

____

Edited June 28, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Daniel Barnes]

Jonathan quoted Rand:

Rand: But, please, anything which you do not hear from me, or read under my name, DO NOT accept it as in ANY WAY emanating from or representing Objectivism. If you want to know what Objectivism is learn it from me and my publications. Nobody else is authorized to speak for me. And if he doesn't want to speak for himself, then you know what to think of him.

Ok. Now can someone explain:

1) How this sort of thing is supposed to encourage actual individualism in Objectivism, and isn't likely to lead to a typical cult-of-personality mentality among her followers?

2) How this insistence on personal imprimatur squares with the standard claim that Objectivism is an objective discovery, and not her personal invention?

Edited June 28, 2008 by Daniel Barnes

[Ellen Stuttle]

Picking up a section from the tape -- quuoted above by Jonathan -- of the Q&A session from Rand's November, 1971, Ford Hall Forum talk, The Moratorium on Brains:

Rand:

Saints! [Audience laughter] I know as little about such nonsense as I do about any such group, and if you have observed how carefully I try not to sanction, not to permit the sanction of my name to be stolen by any group, to the point where I may have to offend innocent young people trying to study Objectivism rather than sanction the guilty ones. In an intellectual matter it matters, and this kind of issue is the perfect proof of it.

What on earth do they mean by being students of Objectivism if that is what they do? It is too early for them, until they have really learned it, to talk about moral pronouncements. You graduate from being a student when you no longer have to use the name of your teacher. They do not have... [Audience applause] My main objection, and I hope this information will be transmitted to whomever it might concern, my objection to all groups of this kind is a follows: There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas, provided you give appropriate credit. You can make any mixture of ideas that you want, the contradiction will be yours. [Audience laughter] But WHY do you NEED the NAME [Rand sounding kind of shrill here] of someone with whom you do not agree, in order to spread your misunderstandings, or worse, your nonsense and falsehood?

Notice that what she was saying in one part was buried under audience applause:

You graduate from being a student when you no longer have to use the name of your teacher. They do not have... [Audience applause]

I was there at that talk, and I recall being surprised by the thunderous applause, even cheers, and lingering audience shufflings and excitement drowning the next part. What seemed to me to have happened was that the answer had tapped into resentment against the "student of" designation, that people were taking the reply as their being set free of that -- and were missing, in their excitement, the import of what she went on to say.

Robert states this message in his subsequent post:

[my emphasis]

I've found the quote interesting for two reasons:

(1) Rand flatly presents the alternatives as being an Objectivist or being irrational.

(2) What's gotten her so wound up is what she takes to be an attack on her notion of moral perfection. (Which, of course, may not have been the actual intention of whoever it was.)

But the more you think about what she's saying here, the more problems it poses.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perhaps Valliant, who gets so hot under the collar about the Smiths changing one line in one performance (which then disappeared into the air) will tell us why this doesn't constitute a "systematic and personal betrayal" of Rand.

Neil,

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

I almost fell off my chair laughing.

Dayaamm!

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan quoted Rand:

Rand: But, please, anything which you do not hear from me, or read under my name, DO NOT accept it as in ANY WAY emanating from or representing Objectivism. If you want to know what Objectivism is learn it from me and my publications. Nobody else is authorized to speak for me. And if he doesn't want to speak for himself, then you know what to think of him.

Ok. Now can someone explain:

1) How this sort of thing is supposed to encourage actual individualism in Objectivism, and isn't likely to lead to a typical cult-of-personality mentality among her followers?

2) How this insistence on personal imprimatur squares with the standard claim that Objectivism is an objective discovery, and not her personal invention?

All philosophy is an invention. What was discovered was human need for explication and implementation so an individual could function over the broadest range of possible activities without violating anyone's rights as defined. In other words, rendering invention from discovery per se is an arbitrary thought exercise. What Rand invented was an artificial human achetype and she addressed its artificial needs which are somewhat congruent with real human needs. In her case we can postulate that the invention/discovery balance is out of whack, hence the essential validity of your observation and the consequential cultism of official Objectivism.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

All philosophy is an invention. What was discovered was human need for explication and implementation so an individual could function over the broadest range of possible activities without violating anyone's rights as defined. In other words, rendering invention from discovery per se is an arbitrary thought exercise. What Rand invented was an artificial human achetype and she addressed its artificial needs which are somewhat congruent with real human needs. In her case we can postulate that the invention/discovery balance is out of whack, hence the essential validity of your observation and the consequential cultism of official Objectivism.

Good answer.