Recommended Posts

Posted

If anyone thinks this was ham-handed, I guess it was. I normally don't do this.

But I have set nonstop anonymous newbie snarkiness as a deal-killer for me. I simply don't want someone like that around me and I don't feel like arguing about it. (Nor do I have time.)

There's also the thing about Barbara. It is OK to disagree with her here on OL. Several people do that. I even do it myself at times. It is not OK to bash her. Not on OL. There is the rest of the Internet to do that if that's what rings your ding-a-ling.

Tinkle if you must, but tinkle elsewhere.

For those who don't understand the difference between disagreeing and bashing, you shouldn't be talking to civilized people on a philosophy forum anyway.

Michael

  • 5 months later...
Posted

>>>On the contrary, I find it to be increasingly prevalent among Objectivists. We see everywhere—particularly on the Internet—the spectacle of supposed supporters of reason and free inquiry erupting in fury at the least provocation and hurling abuse at anyone who opposes—even questions—their convictions.<<<

The Internet is a unique medium in that it allows its users to say things, and behave in ways that most would not have in the recent past. It is very easy, vie the Net, to say things, make accusations, etc. that are not followed by an immediate or natural consequence.

Thank you for this article.

O.

Posted

For those who don't understand the difference between disagreeing and bashing, you shouldn't be talking to civilized people on a philosophy forum anyway.

Great line, Michael!

Bill Parr

Posted

Barbara,

Great, great article. I wish I had read it sooner. There are so many educational pieces on here that it's hard to find a starting point. What I admired most about your piece is that it's easy to read. Only a few years scratching the surface of Objectivism, I'm still trying to make sense of most of the language used in this philosophy. I wouldn't dare say that it was dumbed down, but I humbly appreciate that it wasn't cluttered with jargon :)

Michael,

I'm grateful that I found this site before any other (though I don't visit any others). Most members are level-headed and to the point. As such, I've found myself relating to the aim of Barbara's post in not pre-judging. I'm more of a sideliner. In this case, I learn more by keeping my eyes open as opposed to keeping my ears open and mouth shut.

~ Shane

  • 9 months later...
Posted

Why did I receive an email dated 7:39:58 this morning which said "shane123 has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "Objectivism and Rage"."?

Posted

Ted:

Phew!! I thought I was in a time warp.

I am receiving a number of e-mails from various dates all of a sudden this morning also.

Any auguring on the event?

Adam

looking for birds in flight

Posted

Spammers posted, so you guys received emails if you are subscribed to the thread.

I generally take care of them them fast, so it looks like there is a glitch. But posts were actually made and I deleted them, with their respective accounts.

If you guys want to know where to get term papers done real real cheap from, say, South Vietnam or Belarus, I'll hold on to the guy's info next time.

:)

Michael

Posted

Spammers posted, so you guys received emails if you are subscribed to the thread.

I generally take care of them them fast, so it looks like there is a glitch. But posts were actually made and I deleted them, with their respective accounts.

If you guys want to know where to get term papers done real real cheap from, say, South Vietnam or Belarus, I'll hold on to the guy's info next time.

:)

Michael

I write better quality term papers. Email me privately.

Posted (edited)

I want to ask the group to judge some issues relating to this thread/

A long time ago I saw an interview of William F. Buckley. Though I do not remember his exact words, Buckley clearly asserted, during the talk, that Objectivism/Rand were "anarchist".

Now some questions for thought:

Was Buckley ignorant, mistaken, lying?

Was Buckley's state of mind any of our concern anyway? (remember that "morality" in Objectivism is a private matter. Unless one is having a personal relationship with a liar, should we concern ourselves with their lying?)

Can a person in Buckley's position make such a statement and then claim ignorance or error?

How far CAN a claimant go making FALSE assertions they believe to be true, and NOT be lying?

Is the fact that this writer (me) even thinking these thoughts an example of "Objectivist Rage"?

Under Objectivist thinking, which would be a worse insult to the late Mr. Buckley, in this example; holding him to be ignorant, or a liar?

I think I'll give him the credit he is due. I think Buckley was a damn liar.

Just wondering what Y'all think.

Edited by rodney203
Posted

Rodney:

Well, Bill Buckley was not ignorant.

Is this the reference that you referred too?

"Buckley's none-too-subtle agenda here is to cast his National Review magazine (and, by implication, himself) as heroic savior of a movement that, in his morality play, was nearly undone by two 'extremist' forces: the conspiratorialists of the John Birch Society, and the Objectivists of the Nathaniel Branden Institute. One of his fictional mouthpieces states, 'The Objectivists pose a special challenge. Because if they succeed in implanting their creed on the Republican Party, it becomes a vessel for…a kind of misanthropic anarchy. The GOP has to beat a path to a wholesome conservatism, and that isn't helped by anything I've read in Ayn Rand.' (p. 101)"

By the way, welcome to OL.

Adam

Posted

Buckley was not ignorant about Rand's philosophy in general (although he had admitted to Barbara Branden that he had never read Atlas Shrugged). As recounted in considerable detail in the two recent biographies by Anne C. Heller and Jennifer Burns, Buckley knew Rand and on at least one occasion, was a guest at her apartment in New York (prior, of course, to his publishing of the Whittaker Chambers article in 1957 in National Review).

Buckley was also well aware of the libertarian version of anarchism championed by Murray Rothbard, who for a brief period, was the "house economist" (his words) at Buckley's National Review. He certainly would have known the differance between Rand's essentially classical liberal view of limited government, and Rothbard's anarchism.

Buckley viewed himself as both the shaper and guardian of religious-based American conservatism. In an essay published in a book by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in the 1960's, What is Conservatism? (and later included in another of his many collections of essays, Did You Ever See A Dream Walking?- American Conservative Thought in the Twentieth Century), Buckley recounts how his magazine, National Review, defined conservatism and "read-out" of the movement people and groups whose views he did not approve of. These included: Robert Welch and The John Birch Society; Max Eastman (one of the founders of the American Communist Party, and later an outspoken anticommunist, but still an atheist; Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism; and Ayn Rand and Objectivism. (by the way, for an interesting exercise in Buckley's increasing bitterness about Ayn Rand, compare the versions of this essay as published in these two books -including the changes made between the first and the revised editions of the ISI collection.

Buckley continued to laud himself and his role in defining who is, and who is not, "acceptable" on the Right. In the nineties, he published a "novel," Right From The Start, supposedly an account of several characters and their interactions with these various right wing groups. This gave Buckley a chance to again pat himself on his back. He added a number of fabricated interactions with Ayn Rand including the shock and horror of her followers after they learned of the break between Rand and Branden and their affair in 1968. Except that any public disclosure of the affair was not known until at least 17 years later with the publication of Barbara Branden's biography.

So, Buckley was well aware of who he was dealing with and what he was doing. He was not just a detached observer, he was an active participant and was not above using deception and guile to achieve his desired ends. For information on that aspect, consult the biography wriiten by his son, Christopher.

Posted

Jerry:

"He added a number of fabricated interactions with Ayn Rand including the shock and horror of her followers after they learned of the break between

Rand and Branden and their affair in 1968. Except that any public disclosure of the affair was not known until at least 17 years later with the publication

of Barbara Branden's biography."

Public disclosure means to you?

Adam

Posted

Jerry:

"He added a number of fabricated interactions with Ayn Rand including the shock and horror of her followers after they learned of the break between

Rand and Branden and their affair in 1968. Except that any public disclosure of the affair was not known until at least 17 years later with the publication

of Barbara Branden's biography."

Public disclosure means to you?

Adam

Adam,

No, public disclosure means that none of the principals in "the break" (as it was referred to in Objectivist circles for many years): Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Frank O'Connor, made any public statement of the details (particularly, the sexual affair) other than Rand's "To Whom it may concern," published in an issue of The Objectivist released in August, 1968 (the issue date on the face of the magazine was earlier). The Brandens both responded in a publication of two articles, "In Answer To Ayn Rand," that were mailed to everyone on the NBI mailing list within a month of Rand's published announcement.

Rand's article made no reference at all to a sexual aspect involved in their break. Nathaniel Branden's response also made no reference with the exception of the last two sentences, where he described partially the content of a paper that Rand had stated was so offensive to her: "a tortured, awkward, excruciatingly embarrassed attempt to make clear to her why I felt that an age distance between us of twenty-five years constituted an insuperable barrier, for me, to a romantic relationship." That implied that there might have been a relationship, but it could also have meant that Rand had only desired or proposed a relationship. It does not state that a sexual affair actually existed.

To be more specific on Buckley's fictionalization of this incident, he quotes almost directly from Barbara Branden's biography of the conversation that went on in the confrontation between Rand and Branden after she is informed of Branden having a relationship with Patrecia Scott. That account in Barbara's book (1986) was the first publication of the details of that affair and of the Rand-Branden confrontation. Therefore, the fictional characters in Buckley's novel (whose correct title was Getting It Right: A novel[1993]) could not have known details that were not made public until 18 years later. So Buckley twisted the chronology so that he could insert the salacious details into the story. What he does not include is any even halfway accurate account of her philosophy, so the reader is left with a distorted, caricatured picture of Rand. Never let the facts interfere with telling a story.

- Jerry

Posted

Jerry:

I know. I attended NBI in those years. I received both of the publications that you mentioned.

It was common knowledge amongst a lot of us that there had been an affair.

So, since Nathanial had made the statement you referred to, that seemed to be a pretty public disclosure to me.

Glad you did not make the same spelling mistake as on the other thread, lol.

Adam

Posted

Jerry wrote:

"Buckley was also well aware of the libertarian version of anarchism championed by Murray Rothbard, who for a brief period, was the "house economist" (his words) at Buckley's National Review. He certainly would have known the differance between Rand's essentially classical liberal view of limited government, and Rothbard's anarchism."

Thank you Jerry. That's just the kind of observation I like to elicit, i.e., when the information given virtually speaks for itself. Apparently Buckley was a smear-meister, which places him in the gutter of the intellect as far as I'm concerned.

Jonah Goldberg recently put out a short piece in which he credited Buckley with some kind of "honesty" in his (intellectual) relationship with Rand. I roundly emailed him and challenged him, respectfully pointing out to him Buckley's almost certain lie in the incident I accounted in my first reply. Goldberg returned (equally polite, but criticizing Objectivists for trying to make a moral issue out of everything) giving Buckley the benefit of the doubt- 'maybe his use of the term is different from yours' kind of thing. I'm not sure what Goldberg's relationship with National Review is. (I monitor Google News for "objectivism" or "objectivist". You can certainly find Goldberg's piece yourself). These people will do anything for a buck.

Rodney

dedicated to the truth at all costs

Posted

Jerry wrote:

"Buckley was also well aware of the libertarian version of anarchism championed by Murray Rothbard, who for a brief period, was the "house economist" (his words) at Buckley's National Review. He certainly would have known the differance between Rand's essentially classical liberal view of limited government, and Rothbard's anarchism."

Thank you Jerry. That's just the kind of observation I like to elicit, i.e., when the information given virtually speaks for itself. Apparently Buckley was a smear-meister, which places him in the gutter of the intellect as far as I'm concerned.

Jonah Goldberg recently put out a short piece in which he credited Buckley with some kind of "honesty" in his (intellectual) relationship with Rand. I roundly emailed him and challenged him, respectfully pointing out to him Buckley's almost certain lie in the incident I accounted in my first reply. Goldberg returned (equally polite, but criticizing Objectivists for trying to make a moral issue out of everything) giving Buckley the benefit of the doubt- 'maybe his use of the term is different from yours' kind of thing. I'm not sure what Goldberg's relationship with National Review is. (I monitor Google News for "objectivism" or "objectivist". You can certainly find Goldberg's piece yourself). These people will do anything for a buck.

Rodney

dedicated to the truth at all costs

Rodney,

Jonah Goldberg is a "Contributing Editor" to National Review magazine and also has a regular column on their sister website, National Review Online(not to be confused with National Review Digital, which is simply the magazine online, but only for subscribers). He has been working for NR for quite a while.

It would be unlikely for a staff member of the magazine that Buckley founded and edited for many years, to take a very critical stance against Buckley, at least on essential, or doctrinal, "Buckleyite" positions. Not if he wants to keep his job.

He also wrote a pretty good book (I think the title was Liberal Fascism) debunking the standard liberal position on fascism, showing its extensive socialist roots and actual similarity in practice to Soviet communism. The book received very hostile criticism from the liberal publications and websites, which do not like to see comparisons of facism to leftwing thought. Several years ago, Liberty magazine (a libertarian journal somewhat sympathetic, but also quite critical of Objectivism) had an interesting review comparing the views expressed in Goldberg's book with those expressed by Leonard Peikoff in his book, The Ominous Parallels. If I remember it correctly, the writer thought that the books had somewat similar viewpoints on fascism/Naziism, and complemented one another.

- Jerry

Posted

Jerry, thanks for your interest and reply.

In the interest of setting the record straight though I must take some exception to your assessment of "Liberty" magazine.

I do get the publication. I am under the impression that no contributor would likely get away with smearing (lying about) Objectivism there. I'm under the impression that most of the regular contributors are small government types. Some readers and lesser contributors are clearly anarchist types. I'm not sure just what you meant about the magazine being "critical" of Objectivism; "critical" can mean "seriously but honestly questioning". Overall I feel comfortable there. I tend to prefer the articles that are more "philosophcal", while being bored with those that mostly account current events. To me, the overall quality, and volume, of writing in this low budget operation is astounding. The magazines editor, Stephen Cox, is an "incredible" writer and I enjoy his work. I will read things just because he wrote them.

Posted

Jerry, thanks for your interest and reply.

In the interest of setting the record straight though I must take some exception to your assessment of "Liberty" magazine.

I do get the publication. I am under the impression that no contributor would likely get away with smearing (lying about) Objectivism there. I'm under the impression that most of the regular contributors are small government types. Some readers and lesser contributors are clearly anarchist types. I'm not sure just what you meant about the magazine being "critical" of Objectivism; "critical" can mean "seriously but honestly questioning". Overall I feel comfortable there. I tend to prefer the articles that are more "philosophcal", while being bored with those that mostly account current events. To me, the overall quality, and volume, of writing in this low budget operation is astounding. The magazines editor, Stephen Cox, is an "incredible" writer and I enjoy his work. I will read things just because he wrote them.

It's not really a philosophical magazine. A financial writer some years ago wrote about Objectivism and pretty much screwed it up. It's best for current events for libertarians or the articles of certain writers who do exceptional analytical work. I've subscribed to it continuously from its beginning.

--Brant

Posted

Rodney,

You'll find a wide spectrum of reactions to Rand in Liberty.

Stephen Cox, the editor, is sympathetic to Rand, though he would not identify himself as an Objectivist (on account of his religious views, among other things).

David Ramsey Steele, who used to be a regular contributor (I don't know how active he is now), absolutely detests Rand and many of her ideas.

And so on...

Robert Campbell

  • 1 year later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now