News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Dragonfly]

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?

The conning is not so much in the expression itself (I don't know what those Greeks said in that context, so I can't judge them), but in the trick that is used to pretend that her ethics is a scientific discipline, that can be derived from objective principles by surreptitiously switching from "survival" to "survival as man qua man". Making that switch is conning (then a miracle occurs!).

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

I don't know if they were all foolish (although I suspect that most philosophers in history were on some or even many points foolish, but that's neither here nor there), but today we should know better.

[merjet]

The conning is not so much in the expression itself (I don't know what those Greeks said in that context, so I can't judge them), but in the trick that is used to pretend that her ethics is a scientific discipline, that can be derived from objective principles by surreptitiously switching from "survival" to "survival as man qua man". Making that switch is conning (then a miracle occurs!).

Since when is referring to a person's use of his/her rational faculty to the best of his/her ability a "surreptitiously invoked miracle"?

Such is the meaning of the definition: that which is required for man's survival qua man. It does not mean a momentary or a merely physical survival. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a mindless brute, waiting for another brute to crush his skull. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a crawling aggregate of muscles who is willing to accept any terms, obey any thug and surrender any values, for the sake of what is known as "survival at any price," which may or may not last a week or a year. "Man's survival qua man" means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.

[bmacwilliam]

The conning is not so much in the expression itself (I don't know what those Greeks said in that context, so I can't judge them), but in the trick that is used to pretend that her ethics is a scientific discipline, that can be derived from objective principles by surreptitiously switching from "survival" to "survival as man qua man". Making that switch is conning (then a miracle occurs!).

Exactly. I have never said, nor do I believe that Rand was stupid. In fact I think she was far too smart not to know she was doing this.

Claiming that there's a direct unassailable logic chain connecting axioms to ethics to LF Capitalism only makes sense to me (for someones of her intellect at least) if she was working backwards and set out to "prove" the politcal endpoint at all costs. So what remains is that either she was so blinded by political rage or she was deliberately trying to fudge her way through. It's just that simple.

[Brant Gaede]

"Normative naturalism" is an interesting categorization. If you cannot get an ought from is where does ought come from? What are its roots?

Robert is making philosophy more broadly interesting to me than it's been in a long time. Michael should split this off into a new thread. The problem I had in college with my one philosophy class--aside from the fact it was much, much too big--I walked out on, was everything was jumbled up into unintelligibility. The huge problem with Objectivism is most study it atomistically--a be all and end all.

--Brant

Edited October 15, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[bmacwilliam]

Since when is referring to a person's use of his/her rational faculty to the best of his/her ability a "surreptitiously invoked miracle"?

Who decides what is 'best' ?

[Selene]

Phillip:

I am almost positive that we were probably in the same room at some point in the mid sixties. Your observations and perceptions are quite accurate

in my opinion.

My views of her "flashing angrily" at someone was in those precise public settings. I could see it as frustration from a brilliant revolutionary mind because

a young person did not "get it".

Fine post, one of your best.

Of course I agree with it completely.

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Practically no one believes in instincts or inherited behavioral characteristics. Tabula rasa may be incorrect, but a one word rejection will not suffice.

"Believes in" ?

But you could not possibly be more wrong. Inherited behaviours in all animals, and inherited character traits in humans are a well established fact of reality. Have you ever read any "twin" studies at all? But tabula rasa goes way beyond this claiming a blank knowledge slate too. The only way you can even argue blank slate here is to commit the begging the question fallacy before you even start.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's sounding an awful lot like this to me:

When other thinkers say (or mean) "man qua man," it is a heavy thought.

When Rand says "man qua man," it is a con.

This proves Rand is wrong.

That's what the nonstop overkill sounds like. That is exactly what you guys are communicating. If there is a real thought other than Rand was wrong behind all this constant "Rand was a con" talk, for instance, I suggest another approach. Insisting on that approach is incompetent communication of any such possible idea. Also, you ain't convincing anybody of anything that way other than you don't like Rand.

If that's all you want to say, though, I assure you, I get it. And I have no doubt others get it, too. Why repeat this so often in the same terms? Repeating over and over "I don't like Rand" to people who like her is a rather stupid thing to do, even if you use other words to convey this message.

I know you guys can do better than this.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

The conning is not so much in the expression itself (I don't know what those Greeks said in that context, so I can't judge them), but in the trick that is used to pretend that her ethics is a scientific discipline, that can be derived from objective principles by surreptitiously switching from "survival" to "survival as man qua man". Making that switch is conning (then a miracle occurs!).

Since when is referring to a person's use of his/her rational faculty to the best of his/her ability a "surreptitiously invoked miracle"?

Such is the meaning of the definition: that which is required for man's survival qua man. It does not mean a momentary or a merely physical survival. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a mindless brute, waiting for another brute to crush his skull. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a crawling aggregate of muscles who is willing to accept any terms, obey any thug and surrender any values, for the sake of what is known as "survival at any price," which may or may not last a week or a year. "Man's survival qua man" means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.

The flaw lies in the last sentence: Rand gives no real argument to show that "man qua man" equals "rational being".

She gives no indication that there are several other possibilities for defining "man qua man", none of which have anything to do with mere brute survival, much less give any sort of proof that those alternatives are inferior to her idea. She just allows the power of her rhetoric carry the reader along to her intended goal (ironically, this is one of her strengths as an essayist).

It's one of several place where she does the rhetorical equivalent of a card trick, but this is probably the most important place where she does so.

[Ellen Stuttle]

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:

[....]

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

"[F]rightful mess," the wording used in the Kirkus review, is a description, Robert. It is not a diagnosis. There's no claim of a "disorder" which presents "symptoms."

I take issue with the idea that there is any such something as "NPD" -- a "disorder" which people "have" which presents "symptoms." I don't agree with the operating premises of the DSM approach to begin with. Describing someone as a "frightful mess," however, I'd say does convey legitimate content; not at all precise content of course, instead, a metaphor, an image of disarrayed psychological functioning.

--

Note to those reading this thread who didn't read the SOLO post of mine which started "frightful mess" being talked about: I was quoting the description, not endorsing it.

Ellen

[Jerry Biggers]

Well, this sparring match on whether Rand is a deceiver an/or just ignorant is going nowhere. Discussions of the issues of tabula rasa or man qua man, etc. are interesting but should be in another thread and division (such as Objectivist Philosophy) of Objectivist Living (IMHO).

Except for issues of whether Rand was a deceiver and a liar. Or trying to determine what level of personal psychopathology may fit her. These ad hominem attacks are inappropriate and not worthy of discussion.

I suggest that we return to the topic of Jennifer Burns' book, which brings up many issues that are worthy of discussion.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Jerry Biggers]

.... and following up on my own just-posted advice:

A reminder - Jennifer Burns is scheduled to appear tonight on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, to discuss her book. On the Comedy Central Channel on cable.

[Jerry Biggers]

I just finished watching Jon Stewart interview Jennifer Burns on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.....

My first reaction is Wow! Jennifer handled herself very well and fielded Jon's questions and comments very capably. Instead of using the interview as a chance to pummel and dismiss Ayn Rand, Stewart expressed interest - and respect for her ideas - and at the end of the interview, recommended to his TV audience that they buy Jennifer Burn' book and that they also read Ayn Rand!

On only one occasion did Stewart use a loaded question when referring to Ayn Rand's background in Russia. He stated that she developed a whole system of ideas as a reaction to communism and "wondered" if it would lead to a "totalitarian state of individualists"!

In response, Jennifer sidestepped that landmine, and answered the rest of his comment by discussing in a positive manner her background in Russia and how that experience led her to develop a system of ideas to make the triumph of communism impossible (she said it much better than my summary, and it is also a major theme in her book). Stewart did not return to that issue but went on to discuss Ayn Rand's influence on the right and her atheism. Dr. Burns responded by pointing out the opposition of religious conservatives to Ayn Rand in the fifties, pointing out that they regarded her as a threat because of her advocacy of atheism.

Oh, by the way, Stewart did not even bring up the Rand-Branden affair!

All in all, an impressive performance by Professor Burns - and by Jon Stewart!

The whole interview can be seen on the Comedy Central website (though probably not until tomorrow).

Edited October 16, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Selene]

Guys and dolls:

We are at that tipping point, if we push now, we may be able to breach the wire before it is reinforced.

Folks are more than worried, they are down right terrified.

Before the faces become that vacant I do not care as I am getting my government candy look. Rand described it quite well in Atlas. She also described that they were still terrified.

I believe she made many passing references to terrified herd like behavior, in simple descriptions of street scenes, as one of the characters "...walking with purposely..."* to a dreaded meeting.

Adam

*All the good Randian characters always walked with a purpose

[Greybird]

[...] Oh, by the way, Stewart did not even bring up the Rand-Branden affair!

Well, in leading out, he interjected the non sequitur (before recommending the book) about there being "a lot of sex. {wagging eyebrows}"

It got quite a laugh. But neither he nor Burns named names.

Stewart gets a lot of dismissal — especially from himself — about not being a journalist, and he really isn't one. But what's rarely mentioned is that he asks intelligent questions of all those who pitch their books on his show.

And whether or not he's read all of the content of every book (I'll bet some of them, perhaps this lengthy one, get a précis from his staff), he conveys that he values that content. That's much more than most other authors get from their interviewers.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just caught the interview on Comedy Central. I had to go to the full show to see it for now, but there it was.

Great interview. Jennifer shined like a freshly polished apple. I think the best thing you can say about Jon Stewart's part is that, within his context as a left-leaning lampooner, he was intelligent and he was fair. Who can ask for more?

He even came up with a quotable quote: "Objectivism works really well for extraordinary people."

He didn't say that trying to be funny, either.

Michael

[merjet]

I watched it. It might spur a few book sales, but I didn't get much out of it. One really bizarre statement by Jon Stewart was "She would have a totalitarian state of individuals" or something like that.

It appears episodes can be seen on The Daily Show website 2-3 days after they are aired. Dr. Burns appears about 16-17 minutes after the start of the show.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

I'm not so sure the totalitarian remark was about understanding. Stewart is a comedian.

I think is was a quip that fell flat and/or a hook that Jennifer did not bite.

"The hook to nowhere."

You can't win 'em all.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Jennifer Burns said on her site that she'd never been on TV before.

I'm not sure that's the level of experience one would prefer going into Jon Stewart's show.

But she handled Stewart's approach deftly and kept on message.

The stereotype of talk show hosts is that they don't read their guest's books (I think it's a Fran Lebowitz routine, about how prospective talk show hosts all have to learn to say, "I was reading it on the plane, and then it turned out that [insert name of celebrity] was sitting one row in front of me...").

Either Stewart read Goddess of the Market, or his staff briefed him extensively on it.

Positives all around on this one.

Robert Campbell

[Alfonso Jones]

I just saw the Daily Show with the Jennifer Burns interview.

Burns was articulate and stayed on point. Certainly she could have "chased a rabbit" with Stewart's question about "totalitarianism of the right." I think she made an intelligent choice not to do so, particularly when one never knows what portion of an interview will make it to the cut for the show.

"I can be the hero of my own life." "I can aspire..." She seems to have a certain understanding of the sense of life Rand propounded.

Clearly the "lots and lots of dirty sex" was Stewart's dumb joke about Rand's novels, not about Burns' work.

Bill P

[Jerry Biggers]

I recorded the episode, and after watching it again, I noted that there was not one negative reference about Ayn Rand made by Dr. Burns. And not really much from Jon Stewart (with one exception).

Several times, Jon Stewart asked questions or made a comment that could have been used by Dr. Burns if she wanted to take a critical stance toward Rand, but she did not take the bait. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Stewart did make one observation that could have been a direct lead-in, "...it's almost as if she was trying to create a totalitarian state of individualists" Obviously a negative observation, but one which has often been made by Rand's critics, going as far back as the infamous "review" of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers, in National Review in 1957).

Dr. Burns' answer was to respond to the first part of Stewart's observation, on her origins in Soviet Russia, and pointed-out that she developed her system as an antidote to communism, so that that would never happen again.

At another point in the interview, Stewart described Rand as "...an extraordinary person...she was brilliant...." but added that it seems to be a philosophy that is elitist or promotes an elite. Dr. Burns countered with, "She really sets independence as her standard of value...so you can be mediocre as long as you are independent."

After remarking that Rand was "An incredibly impressive person...sheer force of will to derive this framework, Stewart tried again by adding, "...but I don't think everyone could attain and accomplish what she did," apparently implying that most people could not attain the high standards that Rand was advocating. Dr. Burns' response: "Well, she was creating ideals - things to aspire to - and that's what people take from her....There is a lot of self-help and spiritual energy in these books, and a lot of people take that from her."

Attempting to add some of his trademark comic levity, Stewart exclaimed, "She wrote THE SECRET!" (said in a half-jesting way). Burns, not being thrown off-track, responded, "She sort of did...That I can be the hero of my own life. I can be like John Galt, or Howard Roark, or Dagny Taggart. That is what she wanted."

Trying again, Stewart interjected, with a sly grin, "...and a lot of dirty, dirty sex!" to audience applause. Then, addressing the audience, "Oh! I've READ!". In context, this was clearly a reference to Ayn Rand's books, not to Jennifer's. In reflection, Stewart could have jumped on the Rand/Branden Affair, but never brought that topic up.

Stewart concluded the interview with, "It really is a fascinating story - and it couldn't be more apropo for people to get to know it...and I recommend it! He also followed that with the obligatory comic, sardonic/satiric reference, "along with the books of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh!"

All in all, this was the most positive TV interview about Ayn Rand since her own interview with Mike Wallace - and that was in 1960!

O.K., now that I think about it, the most positive discussions of Objectivism that have been on national TV were those made by Rand on The Great Challenge a symposium on ABC-TV in 1961 (in which she sent poor Russell Kirk stuttering and stammering in protest to her remarks. Oh, and there was a series of late night TV talk shows in Chicago in the early 60s (Irv Kupcinet Show and/or At Random) that had both Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden as guests in a sort of informal roundtable discussion (for about 3 hours!).

Edited October 16, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Philip Coates]

I just watched the interview and I'm trying to think of something to add to what's been posted today, some epistemo-metaphysico insight, some deep and long-winded points. And all I come up with is:

She's cute.

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry B,

Jennifer Burns also said that there is a "tension" in Rand's writing between her "elitist" side and her "populist" side.

It's a significant subtheme of her book.

Robert C

[Jerry Biggers]

I just listened to Jennifer's presentation at the "Kepler Bookstore" (in California, I think) which is on a YouTube video in 7 parts, accessible from Dr. Burns' website.

About two thirds of the way through it, she responds to a questioner from the audience, generally inaudible, but apparently asking her opinion of the Rand/Branden affair incident. Dr. Burns essentially brushed it off as being not very significant or relevant to an evaluation of Rand. She stated that that type of romantic affair is "quite common" among intellectuals and people of letters. She more or less said, in effect, "It happens all the time!"

I was particularly pleased with the way that she handled that issue.

[Selene]

I just listened to Jennifer's presentation at the "Kepler Bookstore" (in California, I think) which is on a YouTube video in 7 parts, accessible from Dr. Burns' website.

About two thirds of the way through it, she responds to a questioner from the audience, generally inaudible, but apparently asking her opinion of the Rand/Branden affair incident. Dr. Burns essentially brushed it off as being not very significant or relevant to an evaluation of Rand. She stated that that type of romantic affair is "quite common" among intellectuals and people of letters. She more or less said, in effect, "It happens all the time!"

I was particularly pleased with the way that she handled that issue.

Excellent answer by Burns. I have always diffused the issue precisely that way for almost 4 decades. It is irrelevant.

One of the reasons that I walked away was particularly the way the "forward looking Randians" [gag] were interested in purifying the "movement" by holding virtual Salem witch trials.

As a movement, I knew we were in trouble then. Therefore, we should all become born again secular Randians and leave the true believers in there own bile.

Adam