News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I find her a raging narcissist.

So...

Evidence:

Extremely hostile to criticism

Addiction issues (nicotine, but other stuff too - diet pills or something?)

As far as I can tell empathy was more or less absent from her life (well maybe Hickman an exception)

Extreme and inappropriate criticism of other philosophers

Huge inflated sense of self-importance

Her conduct wrt the affair

I could go on....

Bob,

If you add caffeine, change Hickman for someone else just as creepy and change philosopher for politician, you just described the vast majority of Americans and Canadians.

btw - It's funny how you leave out stuff when you say something isn't valid. Say, how much a body of work sells decades after the author's death. Maybe if you leave it out, you don't have to account for it. This makes thinking real easy.

It reminds me a bit of what you criticize...

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

If you add caffeine, change Hickman for someone else just as creepy and change philosopher for politician, you just described the vast majority of Americans and Canadians.

btw - It's funny how you leave out stuff when you say something isn't valid. Say, how much a body of work sells decades after the author's death. Maybe if you leave it out, you don't have to account for it. This makes thinking real easy.

It reminds me a bit of what you criticize...

Michael

One word - "Dianetics"

How many other examples of complete nonsense still sell decades after the author's death?

How 'bout the Quran? The Bible?

Wow, those must be real good ones no?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Every one of the books you mentioned entail organizations with gathering places where people meet to worship.

There is nothing even comparable with this situation to Rand's fiction sales to the general public.

Nice try, but try again (that is, if you want true discussion instead of a bullying contest, which I will win).

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Narcissistic" does have some kind of meaning.

DSM meaning? What a joke.

"[T]he frightful mess that was Ayn Rand" is quintessential Kirkus. Virginia Kirkus herself could have written it, though she'd been dead 19 years when it was penned. Considerably more informative than "narcissistic." And "border-line," which you ventured on SOLO, scrapes bottom of the DSM barrel for meaninglessness gussied up as "scientific assessment."

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ah, dear vanity.

How sweet thou art.

In the feces mill of the soul,

Thou art the fart...

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Every one of the books you mentioned entail organizations with gathering places where people meet to worship.

There is nothing even comparable with this situation to Rand's fiction sales to the general public.

Nice try, but try again (that is, if you want true discussion instead of a bullying contest, which I will win).

Michael

Go ahead, move the goalposts wherever you want - I don't care.

YOU asserted that post-mortem sales is somehow an objective measure of quality. This is an absurd assertion.

So are you now saying your assertion only applies to non-getting-together-to-worship-the-author fiction titles? Why is that distinction critical? Hey wait a minute...Does online worship count?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I didn't merely assert so in the past tense. I do assert so in the present.

Make of that what you will.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Bob M,

Your use of "frightful mess" is just as objectionable as Ellen Stuttle's.

"Frightful mess" isn't a diagnostic category. It has such a vague meaning as to be eminently manipulable. It's custom-made to support fudging, foozling, and specious reasoning.

"Narcissistic" does have some kind of meaning.

What, in your opinion, constitutes evidence of narcissistic tendencies on Rand's part?

Robert C

First of all I don't want to descend into all out Rand-bashing because I certainly do have a sincere interest in the ideas and bashing for the sake of bashing is pointless. That being said, as a person, well more accurately as a personality, because I have never met her - that which I can discern from her work anyway - I find her a raging narcissist.

So...

Evidence:

Extremely hostile to criticism

Addiction issues (nicotine, but other stuff too - diet pills or something?)

As far as I can tell empathy was more or less absent from her life (well maybe Hickman an exception)

Extreme and inappropriate criticism of other philosophers

Huge inflated sense of self-importance

Her conduct wrt the affair

I could go on. Honestly, I find it very puzzling that this isn't obvious to everyone that has read even a small portion of her writing and her history. And again, the ideas are of interest to me but other than that I find her narcissistic in the extreme.

Responding to Bob_Mac:

Practically everything that you have just accused Rand of, also applies to many, many writers on both the left and the right. To name just a few glaring examples of those exhibiting what you call, "raging narcissism:" On the Left - Bertrand Russell, Gore Vidal (a good comparison directly to Rand), John Kenneth Galbraith, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Keith Olbermann; on the Right: Bill Buckley (another good comparison), Bill Bennett, Bob Tyrrell, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Every one of these writers qualifies for your description of Ayn Rand's "narcissism".

But, so what? Just because someone exhibits a "raging" sense of the self-importance (by which you mean over-inflated, exaggerated) in their public and/or private life, has little or nothing to do with the truth or quality of what they have advocated in print, on the air, or online.

Your later comments re the popularity of books by L. Ron Hubbard, and from the more orthodox religionists (the Quran, the Bible) are not relevant in comparing to Ayn Rand. In Hubbard's case, the scientologists reportedly were directed by their "Church" to continually buy-up multiple additional copies and return them to the publisher for re-sell to inflate their best seller status. In the case of Christianity and Islam, please! Their "holy books" have been given away and/or thrust on unwilling populaces for literally thousands of years. These are books of dogma, to be believed uncritically. They are not philosophy. On second thought, I guess a good case could be made for labeling them as a type of fiction.

Now there have been some other philosophical novels written (e.g., Jack London, The Iron Heel; Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, come to mind). And of course a number of philosophers, or philosophical writers, have written books to promote their particular philosophy to the masses (H. G. Wells; Bernard Shaw, An Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism). Generally, these types of novels don't do well. The response to Rand's novels has been a glaring exception to this.

Of course, you could watch to see how Ralph Nader's just released "philosophical" novel, Only The Super Rich Can Save Us! - which was meant to directly contravene Atlas Shrugged - does in sales.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Brant Gaede]

One word - "Dianetics"

How many other examples of complete nonsense still sell decades after the author's death?

How 'bout the Quran? The Bible?

Wow, those must be real good ones no?

The correct title, unless memory fails me, is "Diuretics." Seems to be working, too.

You guys are just a bunch of narcissists.

--Brant

not me, not me

I'm so vain she wrote that song about me, me, me--I've got to be me, who else can I be but who I am? Damn! Darn!

[Jerry Biggers]

Bob_Mac -

Oh, I forgot to add, your reference to Rand's writing as a "frightful mess" is highly questionable. Generally, people have been attracted to Rand's novels in part due to the lucid quality of her writing, and the vividness with which she elaborates the plot lines. Those critics that have accused her of having a lot of "literary flaws," usually just state that criticism, but do not give illustrations of what they are actually referring to. Can you?

Regarding her nonfiction writing, most critics (those that have actually read her) complain about the policies that she is advocating, not the method with which she expresses herself. Which nonfiction essay of Rand's are you referring to? Give examples, please.

So far, you have accused her of being narcissistic and being a frightful mess, yet you claim to be attracted to her ideas, to her philosophy. Pray tell, how did you find the elusive pearls of wisdom in the frightful mess of her writing (not to mention getting by her raging narcissism), and what exactly do you like? And what is your methodology to extract gold from this frightful mess. Do tell us! Inquiring minds want to know!

Edited October 14, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[bmacwilliam]

Responding to Bob_Mac:

Practically everything that you have just accused Rand of, also applies to many, many writers on both the left and the right. To name just a few glaring examples of those exhibiting what you call, "raging narcissism:" On the Left - Bertrand Russell, Gore Vidal (a good comparison directly to Rand), John Kenneth Galbraith, Al Gore, Barack Obama, Keith Olbermann; on the Right: Bill Buckley (another good comparison), Bill Bennett, Bob Tyrrell, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Every one of these writers qualifies for your description of Ayn Rand's "narcissism".

But, so what? Just because someone exhibits a "raging" sense of the self-importance (by which you mean over-inflated, exaggerated) in their public and/or private life, has little or nothing to do with the truth or quality of what they have advocated in print, on the air, or online.

Your later comments re the popularity of books by L. Ron Hubbard, and from the more orthodox religionists (the Quran, the Bible) are not relevant in comparing to Ayn Rand. In Hubbard's case, the scientologists reportedly were directed by their "Church" to continually buy-up multiple additional copies and return them to the publisher for re-sell to inflate their best seller status. In the case of Christianity and Islam, please! Their "holy books" have been given away and/or thrust on unwilling populaces for literally thousands of years. These are books of dogma, to be believed uncritically. They are not philosophy. On second thought, I guess a good case could be made for labeling them as a type of fiction.

Now there have been some other philosophical novels written (e.g., Jack London, The Iron Heel; Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, come to mind). And of course a number of philosophers, or philosophical writers, have written books to promote their particular philosophy to the masses (H. G. Wells; Bernard Shaw, An Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism). Generally, these types of novels don't do well. The response to Rand's novels has been a glaring exception to this.

Of course, you could watch to see how Ralph Nader's just released "philosophical" novel, Only The Super Rich Can Save Us! - which was meant to directly contravene Atlas Shrugged - does in sales.

Hold on a second...

I am not comparing her novels to the other works of fiction.

All I am illustrating is that post-mortem sales are not an indication of quality or truth - nothing more.

To some extent, all of us display narcisstic tendencies. Where this becomes a problem is also a matter of debate. A healthy sense of self-importance is one thing. Lack of empathy is a more serious symptom along with destruction of people around you.

Anyway, you have to look at the big picture to form an opinion. How many traits are displayed, severity etc ? I think an important factor is to look at the person's immediate social circle. Is there a pattern of destruction?

But you're certainly right - this has nothing to do with the content or quality of her writing per se. However, the personality of the writer usually bubbles through and this makes it tough for me to read Rand anymore but that is beside the point.

[bmacwilliam]

Bob_Mac -

Oh, I forgot to add, your reference to Rand's writing as a "frightful mess" is highly questionable. Generally, people have been attracted to Rand's novels in part due to the lucid quality of her writing, and the vividness with which she elaborates the plot lines. Those critics that have accused her of having a lot of "literary flaws," usually just state that criticism, but do not give illustrations of what they are actually referring to. Can you?

Regarding her nonfiction writing, most critics (those that have actually read her) complain about the policies that she is advocating, not the method with which she expresses herself. Which nonfiction essay of Rand's are you referring to? Give examples, please.

So far, you have accused her of being narcissistic and being a frightful mess, yet you claim to be attracted to her ideas, to her philosophy. Pray tell, how did you find the elusive pearls of wisdom in the frightful mess of her writing (not to mention getting by her raging narcissism), and what exactly do you like? And what is your methodology to extract gold from this frightful mess. Do tell us! Inquiring minds want to know!

I think Rand herself was a frightful mess, not her writing. I disagree with many of her ideas, and agree with some. This is not the place to outline exactly what I agree with and what I do not.

Methodology? Reality. Many of her ideas are simply at odds with reality and I believe they were more politically motivated than reality-based. As a result I find her intellectually dishonest because I believe she knew exactly what she was doing. "Man qua man" for example is more than just nonsense - it's deliberate deception (in my opinion).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In getting on with my life, I just saw a filmed conversation between Tony Robbins, John Reese and Frank Kern. The contrast between what these brilliant guys are doing—their actual concrete achievements and the reasons they do these things—and the sheer pettiness of attacking or defending Rand qua "frightful mess" is staggering.

I'm sitting here wondering what the hell I am doing in the middle of this...

Here's the video if anyone is interested:

Interview with Frank Kern and John Reese

The video file is fairly large and runs about half an hour, but well worth the hassle.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Here is the current DSM language on Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

As is typical of the DSM, it's a checklist rather than a genus-differentia definition. NPD is supposed to require at least 5 of these 9:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

5. Has a sense of entitlement

6. Is interpersonally exploitive

7. Lacks empathy

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

Anyone who wants to take issue with any of this is welcome.

But there's content to take issue with.

What are the symptoms of frightful messiness?

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

Bob_Mac -

Oh, I forgot to add, your reference to Rand's writing as a "frightful mess" is highly questionable. Generally, people have been attracted to Rand's novels in part due to the lucid quality of her writing, and the vividness with which she elaborates the plot lines. Those critics that have accused her of having a lot of "literary flaws," usually just state that criticism, but do not give illustrations of what they are actually referring to. Can you?

Regarding her nonfiction writing, most critics (those that have actually read her) complain about the policies that she is advocating, not the method with which she expresses herself. Which nonfiction essay of Rand's are you referring to? Give examples, please.

So far, you have accused her of being narcissistic and being a frightful mess, yet you claim to be attracted to her ideas, to her philosophy. Pray tell, how did you find the elusive pearls of wisdom in the frightful mess of her writing (not to mention getting by her raging narcissism), and what exactly do you like? And what is your methodology to extract gold from this frightful mess. Do tell us! Inquiring minds want to know!

I think Rand herself was a frightful mess, not her writing. I disagree with many of her ideas, and agree with some. This is not the place to outline exactly what I agree with and what I do not.

Methodology? Reality. Many of her ideas are simply at odds with reality and I believe they were more politically motivated than reality-based. As a result I find her intellectually dishonest because I believe she knew exactly what she was doing. "Man qua man" for example is more than just nonsense - it's deliberate deception (in my opinion).

Regarding her personal life: some aspects might be termed a "mess," certainly her love life (IMHO). But so are many other writers....but again, so what?

You say that you disagree with many of her ideas. Which ones do you agree with? Actually, this forum is the place to discuss Objectivism, pro and con. Of course, you do not have to. But you made the assertions in the first place.

"Many of her ideas are simply at odds with reality..." The rest of that sentence implies that you mean she was politically unrealistic. Well, that depends upon what her goals were. It is quite clear that she saw herself as a moral crusader criticizing the current culture and advocating for a different set of moral and political values that would enhance and promote individual liberty. Her ideas might have seemed impractical, but to quote her, "the moral is the practical."

However, you also call her "intellectually dishonest because I believe she knew exactly what she was doing." In plain terms, that means that you think she was a liar and a deceiver and was perpetrating a fraud. That she did not believe herself, what she was advocating. Sort of a "Bernard Madoff" of the literary world. That is a strong indictment. Please provide the evidence. To do that, you would have to show where she stated that she did not believe the political and ethical principles that she had written. Please show me where she says that. If she does not say it, upon what or whom are you basing those assertions?

Your criticism of Rand is so pervasive that I do not see how you could claim to believe any of her writings. After all, she was lying, and didn't believe it herself (according to you).

[Robert Campbell]

Now Borderline Personality Disorder.

This is another 5 out of 9:

1. frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.

2. a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation

3. identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self

4. impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating).

5. recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior

6. affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)

7. chronic feelings of emptiness

8. inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)

9. transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, all that and I'm still here!

--Brant

did well on the narcissist test too

[Selene]

Summa Cum Laude Brant, still room for improvement.

Maybe torturing animals might be great and you could be declared by the league to be the Superbowl championship team, if you wore black face.

What would happen if we all went into our Congressional offices with half black and half white faces and asked for a government job?

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Here is the current DSM language on Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

As is typical of the DSM, it's a checklist rather than a genus-differentia definition. NPD is supposed to require at least 5 of these 9:

1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

5. Has a sense of entitlement

6. Is interpersonally explotive

7. Lacks empathy

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

Anyone who wants to take issue with any of this is welcome.

But there's content to take issue with.

What are the symptoms of frightful messiness?

Robert Campbell

8 out of 9, maybe even 9?

[bmacwilliam]

Regarding her personal life: some aspects might be termed a "mess," certainly her love life (IMHO). But so are many other writers....but again, so what?

You say that you disagree with many of her ideas. Which ones do you agree with? Actually, this forum is the place to discuss Objectivism, pro and con. Of course, you do not have to. But you made the assertions in the first place.

"Many of her ideas are simply at odds with reality..." The rest of that sentence implies that you mean she was politically unrealistic. Well, that depends upon what her goals were. It is quite clear that she saw herself as a moral crusader criticizing the current culture and advocating for a different set of moral and political values that would enhance and promote individual liberty. Her ideas might have seemed impractical, but to quote her, "the moral is the practical."

However, you also call her "intellectually dishonest because I believe she knew exactly what she was doing." In plain terms, that means that you think she was a liar and a deceiver and was perpetrating a fraud. That she did not believe herself, what she was advocating. Sort of a "Bernard Madoff" of the literary world. That is a strong indictment. Please provide the evidence. To do that, you would have to show where she stated that she did not believe the political and ethical principles that she had written. Please show me where she says that. If she does not say it, upon what or whom are you basing those assertions?

Your criticism of Rand is so pervasive that I do not see how you could claim to believe any of her writings. After all, she was lying, and didn't believe it herself (according to you).

"The rest of that sentence implies that you mean she was politically unrealistic. "

No. Not related to politics. I imply that some basic assertions are simply false. Whether the falsehood implies dishonesty or not is certainly arguable. What I struggle with is trying to paint an accurate picture of her viewpoint in proper perspective. What I mean is I have trouble wrapping my head around what I could only describe as stunning ignorances on her part. Is this a willful ignorance? Is some of this a historical ignorance meaning maybe the pertinent facts weren't generally understood at the time? The source of my disdain is significantly a result of her rather explosive collisions of ignorance and arrogance. But that's a more subjective/personal criticism.

But to specifics:

Man qua man I think is a con.

Tabula Rasa is nonsense. Should she or did she know better? I don't know.

Dismissal of is/ought. Foolish at best.

Did she deliberatly lie? Hard to say. I think so, but I cannot be sure. What I believe though is that her writings make much more sense if she worked backwards from the assumption that communism was so bad, that the exact opposite HAD to be the "one true way". She jumped through all kinds of ridiculous erroneous concoctions to jam that square peg in a round hole.

Should another thread be started?

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Ayn Rand Up Close - One Man's Extended Experience

> "Borderline Personality Disorder"?..."Narcissistic Personality Disorder"?

Robert, as I've posted elsewhere, in the decade before her death, as a New York Objectivist in good standing who was sort of on the fringes of the 'Inner Circle' I had a chance to observe Ayn Rand, to speak to her occasionally, to ask her questions, to listen to her speak at length in a private context dealing with others. Instead of observing narcissism or rage or grandiosity or belligerence, or attempts to bully, I saw pretty much **the opposite**.

She tended to speak quietly, was quite willing to calmly explain and reexplain, and was very tactful and considerate of people's feelings. More of a model of rationality and fair-mindedness than anyone I can think of at the moment.

It was very clear to me that -this- was the person who wrote the novels. This was the person who originated the philosophy. Very well-adjusted and with a certain serenity. Enormously serious minded and painstaking in explanation, but even a bit of a sense of wry humor from time to time.

Perhaps the single trait that I remember as most distinctive (probably because it is rare in real life) is the enormous -patience- she repeatedly, steadily displayed.

"On the ramparts" in public venues, defending herself and crusading against enemies could be a different matter. As could be volatile personal conflicts. I haven't seen all the T.V. interviews - focusing on her famous explosions, but I have seen all three of the Johnny Carson "Tonight Shows" with her in which she had rapport with the interviewer. They were wonderful - no explosions, calm even in the face of hostile, skeptical probing...and that's sort of the way I saw her over and over in private contexts.

I suspect, at least for long stretches of her life, the raging and belligerent Rand has been somewhat exaggerated.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for putting this up, Phil. Sounds like good testimony.

--Brant

[Jerry Biggers]

Regarding her personal life: some aspects might be termed a "mess," certainly her love life (IMHO). But so are many other writers....but again, so what?

You say that you disagree with many of her ideas. Which ones do you agree with? Actually, this forum is the place to discuss Objectivism, pro and con. Of course, you do not have to. But you made the assertions in the first place.

"Many of her ideas are simply at odds with reality..." The rest of that sentence implies that you mean she was politically unrealistic. Well, that depends upon what her goals were. It is quite clear that she saw herself as a moral crusader criticizing the current culture and advocating for a different set of moral and political values that would enhance and promote individual liberty. Her ideas might have seemed impractical, but to quote her, "the moral is the practical."

However, you also call her "intellectually dishonest because I believe she knew exactly what she was doing." In plain terms, that means that you think she was a liar and a deceiver and was perpetrating a fraud. That she did not believe herself, what she was advocating. Sort of a "Bernard Madoff" of the literary world. That is a strong indictment. Please provide the evidence. To do that, you would have to show where she stated that she did not believe the political and ethical principles that she had written. Please show me where she says that. If she does not say it, upon what or whom are you basing those assertions?

Your criticism of Rand is so pervasive that I do not see how you could claim to believe any of her writings. After all, she was lying, and didn't believe it herself (according to you).

"The rest of that sentence implies that you mean she was politically unrealistic. "

No. Not related to politics. I imply that some basic assertions are simply false. Whether the falsehood implies dishonesty or not is certainly arguable. What I struggle with is trying to paint an accurate picture of her viewpoint in proper perspective. What I mean is I have trouble wrapping my head around what I could only describe as stunning ignorances on her part. Is this a willful ignorance? Is some of this a historical ignorance meaning maybe the pertinent facts weren't generally understood at the time? The source of my disdain is significantly a result of her rather explosive collisions of ignorance and arrogance. But that's a more subjective/personal criticism.

But to specifics:

Man qua man I think is a con.

Tabula Rasa is nonsense. Should she or did she know better? I don't know.

Dismissal of is/ought. Foolish at best.

Did she deliberatly lie? Hard to say. I think so, but I cannot be sure. What I believe though is that her writings make much more sense if she worked backwards from the assumption that communism was so bad, that the exact opposite HAD to be the "one true way". She jumped through all kinds of ridiculous erroneous concoctions to jam that square peg in a round hole.

Should another thread be started?

(sigh) O.K., I'll try this one more time. You make a lot of sweeping generalizations and condemnations ("explosive collisions of ignorance and arrogance") against Rand, but offer no specifics at all to back them up. You claim to accept some of her philosophy, but will give no examples of what you agree with in her writings. You continue to believe that she is a liar and a deceiver, but provide no evidence.

Then you offer three statements that are so brief as to hardly qualify for further consideration:

"Man qua man I think is a con." No explanation. Why is it a "con?"

"Tabula Rasa is nonsense. Should she or did she know better? I don't know." Actually, Rand is not alone on this issue. Most of the social sciences accept tabula rasa. Practically no one believes in instincts or inherited behavioral characteristics. Tabula rasa may be incorrect, but a one word rejection will not suffice.

"Dismissal of is/ought. Foolish at best". I assume that you are criticizing Rand's disagreement with the claim that one cannot derive a specific course of ethical action from the facts of reality. Describing a key argument in philosophy as "foolish" will not do.

But I do agree that this discussion of your unsubstantiated claims should not be pursued in in a thread devoted to Jennifer Burns' book. And if you are unwilling or unable to back up your assertions, then they do not deserve a place at all in this forum.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Chris Grieb]

Subject: Ayn Rand Up Close - One Man's Extended Experience

> "Borderline Personality Disorder"?..."Narcissistic Personality Disorder"?

Robert, as I've posted elsewhere, in the decade before her death, as a New York Objectivist in good standing who was sort of on the fringes of the 'Inner Circle' I had a chance to observe Ayn Rand, to speak to her occasionally, to ask her questions, to listen to her speak at length in a private context dealing with others. Instead of observing narcissism or rage or grandiosity or belligerence, or attempts to bully, I saw pretty much **the opposite**.

She tended to speak quietly, was quite willing to calmly explain and reexplain, and was very tactful and considerate of people's feelings. More of a model of rationality and fair-mindedness than anyone I can think of at the moment.

It was very clear to me that -this- was the person who wrote the novels. This was the person who originated the philosophy. Very well-adjusted and with a certain serenity. Enormously serious minded and painstaking in explanation, but even a bit of a sense of wry humor from time to time.

Perhaps the single trait that I remember as most distinctive (probably because it is rare in real life) is the enormous -patience- she repeatedly, steadily displayed.

"On the ramparts" in public venues, defending herself and crusading against enemies could be a different matter. As could be volatile personal conflicts. I haven't seen all the T.V. interviews - focusing on her famous explosions, but I have seen all three of the Johnny Carson "Tonight Shows" with her in which she had rapport with the interviewer. They were wonderful - no explosions, calm even in the face of hostile, skeptical probing...and that's sort of the way I saw her over and over in private contexts.

I suspect, at least for long stretches of her life, the raging and belligerent Rand has been somewhat exaggerated.

Great post! I saw her a few times at NBI in New York City and the above is what I saw more of the above than the reports of her blowing her top. I was never at Ford Hall Forum but some of the answers she gave were a little over the top. The last word "disgusting" to a question about homosexuality as an example.

[Robert Campbell]

Bob M,

Here's my quick take on your contentions.

Man qua man I think is a con.

Tabula Rasa is nonsense. Should she or did she know better? I don't know.

Dismissal of is/ought. Foolish at best.

Did she deliberatly lie? Hard to say. I think so, but I cannot be sure. What I believe though is that her writings make much more sense if she worked backwards from the assumption that communism was so bad, that the exact opposite HAD to be the "one true way". She jumped through all kinds of ridiculous erroneous concoctions to jam that square peg in a round hole.

Should another thread be started?

Ayn Rand didn't originate the notion of "man qua man." It goes back to the Greeks. Were Aristotle, Epicurus, and the Stoics conning everyone?

Many of the Greek philosophers didn't believe there was an unbridgeable gulf between "is" and "ought." Were they all foolish at best?

Both of your complaints are classic expressions of anti-normative naturalism, which has been a common point of view in Western cultures for the past 300 years or so. Rand was a proponent of normative naturalism. Normative naturalism is not a dead letter, by any means. But the questions are deep, and they should be taken to another thread.

A thoughtful discussion of normative and anti-normative naturalism could add a lot of value. The disagreements between Richard Goode and the Perigonian contingent over at SOLOP were about the same package of issues, but both sides had such contempt for the other, and the Perigonians are so bereft of intellectual capacity, that only a pissing contest could ensue.

On the tabula rasa thing, I must respectfully disagree with Jerry. Today in the social sciences there are sharp divisions about the matter. I don't think that Rand's view is defensible; it depends on inadequate conceptions of animal cognition and animal motivation, and on an insufficiently examined notion of "mental content." The usual criticisms of the tabula rasa notion come from folks like Chomsky, Fodor, and Pinker, whose own conceptions of knowledge are inadequate. But all of this needs its own thread as well.

Robert Campbell