Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Adam; I'm a bit confused. It seemed to me that the point Greenspan made in article "Antitrust" is still a good one. On the legal front a great many legal scholars would agree many of Rand's and Greenspan's criticism of these laws. One who comes to mind is Robert Bork.

I wonder if Anne Heller may have confused Greenspan's essay "The Assault on Integrity" which is a defense of businessmen. The article is worth rereading.

Jerry; I do not know how long the event at Cato lasted but since both authors would be signing books for period and might have had other events to go to. I don't think he was peremptory when David Boaz cut it off. It is worth noting that when the question period started no one had one and Boaz had to pose the first question.

Chris:

I do not think we are disagreeing.

"I have close to a zero tolerance policy after a certain point with some of these folks." I was addressing the second and third generation of "believers in Rand" that was being addressed.

As to Greenspan, I agree with the authoress that he did change his global opinion of the concept "businessman" as it existed in the 1961 Anti Trust essay: http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/12/interrupting-the-election-coverage-alan-greenspan-on-antitrust-circa-1961/

Adam

Adam,

The problem I have with second and third generation "believers" in Rand is not so much their celebration of Rand, her works alone justify that. It's a failure to take to heart the central individualism of her message. It is up to each reader to reconcile the demand for coherence (contradictions by their nature do not exist) with correspondence to reality. The problem is that everyone deals with incomplete information, including Rand. There is an everpresent tension between further identification and coherence.

Balancing this tension and remaining true to individualism and independence means there will always be important, honest disagreements among people about Rand and her work. What is needed are not only honest critics and promoters, but also people willing to take the implications of her work in significant, positive new directions.

There is enough out there in complex systems and complexity theory, evolutionary and developmental psychology, positive psychology, neuroscience and other fields to occupy many lifetimes and expand Rand's system beyond a philosophy into an organic body of knowledge. During this process, some will come to disagree with Rand, finding topics she did not address and errors in her statements about psychology to be of significant weight to dismiss her. What I found refreshing in Rand was a willingness to stick her neck out, to make new identifications on an unprecedented scale and stand behind them in the face of almost universal criticism. That these traits and their consequences should now be significantly and on balance held against her is a shame.

Jim

Edited October 30, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James!

Great to see you. I read you had been ill.

I hope you are feeling better.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

James!

Great to see you. I read you had been ill.

I hope you are feeling better.

Michael

Yes and thanks for the well wishes, my wife and I had a bout with the flu and we are both feeling much better. We didn't get it subtyped, but it was worse than most illnesses I've had. I've had one case of the flu and a couple of colds before that I'd say were worse than this. Kids and pregnant women should definitely take precautions.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Can you get flu electronically, over the Internet?

--Brant

worried

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Can you get flu electronically, over the Internet?

--Brant

worried

Laughs, no, not unless little pieces of RNA and a protein coat become intelligent and learn to hitch a ride on an electron pulse :-). I think we probably caught it at WalMart. Cheaper isn't always better.

Jim

[Dragonfly]

Can you get flu electronically, over the Internet?

Perhaps Jacques Benveniste would have believed that.

[Selene]

Adam; I'm a bit confused. It seemed to me that the point Greenspan made in article "Antitrust" is still a good one. On the legal front a great many legal scholars would agree many of Rand's and Greenspan's criticism of these laws. One who comes to mind is Robert Bork.

I wonder if Anne Heller may have confused Greenspan's essay "The Assault on Integrity" which is a defense of businessmen. The article is worth rereading.

Jerry; I do not know how long the event at Cato lasted but since both authors would be signing books for period and might have had other events to go to. I don't think he was peremptory when David Boaz cut it off. It is worth noting that when the question period started no one had one and Boaz had to pose the first question.

Chris:

I do not think we are disagreeing.

"I have close to a zero tolerance policy after a certain point with some of these folks." I was addressing the second and third generation of "believers in Rand" that was being addressed.

As to Greenspan, I agree with the authoress that he did change his global opinion of the concept "businessman" as it existed in the 1961 Anti Trust essay: http://politicalinqu...ust-circa-1961/

Adam

Adam,

The problem I have with second and third generation "believers" in Rand is not so much their celebration of Rand, her works alone justify that. It's a failure to take to heart the central individualism of her message. It is up to each reader to reconcile the demand for coherence (contradictions by their nature do not exist) with correspondence to reality. The problem is that everyone deals with incomplete information, including Rand. There is an everpresent tension between further identification and coherence.

Balancing this tension and remaining true to individualism and independence means there will always be important, honest disagreements among people about Rand and her work. What is needed are not only honest critics and promoters, but also people willing to take the implications of her work in significant, positive new directions.

There is enough out there in complex systems and complexity theory, evolutionary and developmental psychology, positive psychology, neuroscience and other fields to occupy many lifetimes and expand Rand's system beyond a philosophy into an organic body of knowledge. During this process, some will come to disagree with Rand, finding topics she did not address and errors in her statements about psychology to be of significant weight to dismiss her. What I found refreshing in Rand was a willingness to stick her neck out, to make new identifications on an unprecedented scale and stand behind them in the face of almost universal criticism. That these traits and their consequences should now be significantly and on balance held against her is a shame.

Jim

Jim:

Beautifully written. I enjoy your posts. Sorry to hear about the dis-ease. Obviously you got the flu because we do not have marxist medicine.

I honestly cannot understand the 19 year old male acolyte being the average OBJECTIVIST, but I saw it was a clear problem back in the early-mid 60's. I also believe that Nathanial's work was significant to the philosophy and to myself also. To split up the movement in to caterwauling conflict is worse than the Shiites and Sunnis. It is twice as bad because it asserts a rational basis for thought.

Someone over at ARI et al must have not read the memo.

However, I not only cannot understand the encysting of Ayn by her intellectual heir, I will not accept that kind of repressive organization. It is, on its face, sick. Moreover, as Boaz clearly pointed out [thanks Jerry!] Ayn made freedom, capitalism and individualism man based. It was an exponential leap in thought. She had no psychology or other flesh for some of the skeleton.

One of the reasons that I have been able to "spread the word" is because I work at it every day. I enjoy it. I also apply to other peoples crafts or work which is why I am effective.

Your points about how we are the ones who must grow the ideas is basically perfect.

Many thanks.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> Can you get flu electronically, over the Internet? [brant]

Only if you've been drinking.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Chris Grieb]

James!

Great to see you. I read you had been ill.

I hope you are feeling better.

Michael

Jim; I'm sorry about your illness and I am glad you are feeling better.

Your last post needs to be reread but I like your point.

[Chris Grieb]

Adam; I'm a bit confused. It seemed to me that the point Greenspan made in article "Antitrust" is still a good one. On the legal front a great many legal scholars would agree many of Rand's and Greenspan's criticism of these laws. One who comes to mind is Robert Bork.

I wonder if Anne Heller may have confused Greenspan's essay "The Assault on Integrity" which is a defense of businessmen. The article is worth rereading.

Jerry; I do not know how long the event at Cato lasted but since both authors would be signing books for period and might have had other events to go to. I don't think he was peremptory when David Boaz cut it off. It is worth noting that when the question period started no one had one and Boaz had to pose the first question.

Chris:

I do not think we are disagreeing.

"I have close to a zero tolerance policy after a certain point with some of these folks." I was addressing the second and third generation of "believers in Rand" that was being addressed.

As to Greenspan, I agree with the authoress that he did change his global opinion of the concept "businessman" as it existed in the 1961 Anti Trust essay: http://politicalinqu...ust-circa-1961/

Adam

Adam,

The problem I have with second and third generation "believers" in Rand is not so much their celebration of Rand, her works alone justify that. It's a failure to take to heart the central individualism of her message. It is up to each reader to reconcile the demand for coherence (contradictions by their nature do not exist) with correspondence to reality. The problem is that everyone deals with incomplete information, including Rand. There is an everpresent tension between further identification and coherence.

Balancing this tension and remaining true to individualism and independence means there will always be important, honest disagreements among people about Rand and her work. What is needed are not only honest critics and promoters, but also people willing to take the implications of her work in significant, positive new directions.

There is enough out there in complex systems and complexity theory, evolutionary and developmental psychology, positive psychology, neuroscience and other fields to occupy many lifetimes and expand Rand's system beyond a philosophy into an organic body of knowledge. During this process, some will come to disagree with Rand, finding topics she did not address and errors in her statements about psychology to be of significant weight to dismiss her. What I found refreshing in Rand was a willingness to stick her neck out, to make new identifications on an unprecedented scale and stand behind them in the face of almost universal criticism. That these traits and their consequences should now be significantly and on balance held against her is a shame.

Jim

Jim:

Beautifully written. I enjoy your posts. Sorry to hear about the dis-ease. Obviously you got the flu because we do not have marxist medicine.

I honestly cannot understand the 19 year old male acolyte being the average OBJECTIVIST, but I saw it was a clear problem back in the early-mid 60's. I also believe that Nathanial's work was significant to the philosophy and to myself also. To split up the movement in to caterwauling conflict is worse than the Shiites and Sunnis. It is twice as bad because it asserts a rational basis for thought.

Someone over at ARI et al must have not read the memo.

However, I not only cannot understand the encysting of Ayn by her intellectual heir, I will not accept that kind of repressive organization. It is, on its face, sick. Moreover, as Boaz clearly pointed out [thanks Jerry!] Ayn made freedom, capitalism and individualism man based. It was an exponential leap in thought. She had no psychology or other flesh for some of the skeleton.

One of the reasons that I have been able to "spread the word" is because I work at it every day. I enjoy it. I also apply to other peoples crafts or work which is why I am effective.

Your points about how we are the ones who must grow the ideas is basically perfect.

Many thanks.

Adam

Adam; Your point about Rand making freedom, capitaism and individualism man based is a great one. Her other great point was her attack on altruism. Her idea that was some other basis of morality than sacrificing yourself to others or others to yourself.

[Selene]

Chris:

Yes. Particularly the concept that the victim must, at some level, either consciously, or subconsciously volitionally sanction.

The sanction of the victim is explosively liberating. It applies to relationships, addictions and a slew of other counter productive human behavior.

To a degree, I believe that is one of the issues that may be confusing Ms. Xray concerning the "objective" "subjective" issue.

Thank you for the compliment. You should take bows also, I think you, as I, who has been there since almost the beginning have some important perceptions to impart to folks.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

A review of Anne Heller's book will be the cover story in the New York Times Book Review tomorrow.

During the first 7 minutes of this podcast

http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/book-review-podcast-anne-c-heller-on-ayn-rand/

she is interviewed by Sam Tanenhaus.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Chris:

Yes. Particularly the concept that the victim must, at some level, either consciously, or subconsciously volitionally sanction.

The sanction of the victim is explosively liberating. It applies to relationships, addictions and a slew of other counter productive human behavior.

To a degree, I believe that is one of the issues that may be confusing Ms. Xray concerning the "objective" "subjective" issue.

Thank you for the compliment. You should take bows also, I think you, as I, who has been there since almost the beginning have some important perceptions to impart to folks.

Adam

Thank you for your complement. Your comment about the sanction of the victim is a good oned.

[Chris Grieb]

A review of Anne Heller's book will be the cover story in the New York Times Book Review tomorrow.

During the first 7 minutes of this podcast

http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/book-review-podcast-anne-c-heller-on-ayn-rand/

she is interviewed by Sam Tanenhaus.

Robert Cmapbell

The review was given out at the Cato event. I think it is the first page review. The NYT continues to trash Rand.

Robert: Are you changing your name. The new one is hard to pronounce.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Robert Campbell]

Chris G,

"Cmapbell" is hard to pronounce.

I've decided to revert to the original spelling

Robert C

[Jerry Biggers]

I may be incorrect on this, but the copy of the book review given out at the Cato event last week, was from a regular issue of the newspaper per se. Apparently, there is yet another review that is coming out this Sunday in the New York Times Book Review (which is a separate section of the paper, sort of a magazine).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

Yup.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Here's the new NYT review. Pretty foul. Not GQ level though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html

Rand, typically, denied any influence, saying only that Nie­tzsche “beat me to all my ideas”.

Where'd that come from?

[Jerry Biggers]

Here's the new NYT review. Pretty foul. Not GQ level though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html

Rand, typically, denied any influence, saying only that Nie­tzsche “beat me to all my ideas”.

Where'd that come from?

Looks like I was wrong. Your link took me to the same character-assassination-disguised-as-a-book-review that was distributed at the Burns-Heller reception last Wednesday at The Cato Institute. I never forget a mugging.

I was hoping that a more objective piece was appearing today. But once again, we have a writer using a book review to spout his own invective. If there was anything positive about Rand in the Heller book, you would not know it by reading this "review."

Putting the best light on these hate-filled attacks, I guess we could say that they are so extreme in their tone that they may either raise suspicion in the reader ("If she was that poor a writer and that malevolent a personality, how come she continues to attract so many readers?"); and/or cause the readers of these reviews to investigate the contents of her books for themselves. That sort of reaction must have been happening ever since Atlas Shrugged was published,because almost all reviews of her books have been highly negative, and yet her books were bestsellers back then, and continue to be. So either a very large proportion of the reading populace never read these reviews; or if they do, they simply ignore or discount what they say.

[9thdoctor]

Rand, typically, denied any influence, saying only that Nie­tzsche “beat me to all my ideas”.

Where'd that come from?

I pulled out my copy of PAR, hit the index, and on page 45 find: "an older cousin said to her, grinning with a touch of malice, 'Here is someone you should read, because he beat you to all your ideas.' Curious, Alice began reading Thus Spake Zarathustra."

Maybe Heller spins this tale differently, but if not the NYT reviewer is just being dishonest. Unprecedented!

Edited November 1, 2009 by Ninth Doctor

[Alfonso Jones]

Rand, typically, denied any influence, saying only that Nie­tzsche “beat me to all my ideas”.

Where'd that come from?

I pulled out my copy of PAR, hit the index, and on page 45 find: "an older cousin said to her, grinning with a touch of malice, 'Here is someone you should read, because he beat you to all your ideas.' Curious, Alice began reading Thus Spake Zarathustra."

Maybe Heller spins this tale differently, but if not the NYT reviewer is just being dishonest. Unprecedented!

Yeah. Another dog bites man story.

Bill P

[Robert Campbell]

I can see why there was confusion about the Kirsch review of Anne Heller's book.

Online, the Kirsch review is dated Thursday October 29, not Sunday November 1.

And the New York Times sometimes reviews books twice, once in the daily pages and again in the Sunday Book Review section.

Anyway, Kirsch either didn't read Heller's book carefully or he's purposely distorting what he read:

It was Vera [Guzarchik] who, while reading Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical novel Thus Spake Zarathustra, remarked that Rand reminded her of Zarathustra, the German philosopher's prophetic outlaw hero, or at least that Nietzsche had "beat me to all my ideas," Rand recalled. (pp. 41-42)

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> either a very large proportion of the reading populace never read these reviews; or if they do, they simply ignore or discount what they say.

Jerry, the people who carefully follow what the reviewers in the New York Times, The New Republic, etc. say tend to be the professional intellectuals. But the bad news is that the professional intellectuals are the ones who determine the course of the intellectual culture and thus, eventually, the country.

[Jerry Biggers]

> either a very large proportion of the reading populace never read these reviews; or if they do, they simply ignore or discount what they say.

Jerry, the people who carefully follow what the reviewers in the New York Times, The New Republic, etc. say tend to be the professional intellectuals. But the bad news is that the professional intellectuals are the ones who determine the course of the intellectual culture and thus, eventually, the country.

Phil -

Quite true. This fact was acknowledged, even emphasized, by Rand in a number of places including the title essay in For The New Intellectual, and the essay, "The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age." The point is also emphasized in the first lecture in Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism course.

While conceding the point that the professional intellectuals determine the course of the country's culture, it is curious that Republicans (and Reagan, especially) have won so many state and national elections, since the lib intellectuals despise and scorn Republicans and conservatives. So, if they completely dominated the political culture, we would have had practically zero elected Republicans.

Even though there are a considerable number of intellectuals who call themselves "conservative," they constitute a very small fraction of the intellectual "class" as a whole. The number of academics that would further distinguish themselves from conservatives, the libertarians/classical liberals and Objectivists, is even smaller.

The liberal intellectual domination in the book publishing field is so overwhelming, that "The Death of Conservatism," by Sam Tannenhaus (editor of The New York Times Book Review), a longish article in The New Republic, has been quickly and pretentiously transformed into a hardback book (of around 50 or so pages!). I found it very prominently displayed in the local mass market book store chain, Borders. This pamphlet-sized "book," is significant only in that its title demonstrates a "wish-fulfillment/fantasy" of the lib intellectual establishment.

[Chris Grieb]

> either a very large proportion of the reading populace never read these reviews; or if they do, they simply ignore or discount what they say.

Jerry, the people who carefully follow what the reviewers in the New York Times, The New Republic, etc. say tend to be the professional intellectuals. But the bad news is that the professional intellectuals are the ones who determine the course of the intellectual culture and thus, eventually, the country.

Phil -

Quite true. This fact was acknowledged, even emphasized, by Rand in a number of places including the title essay in For The New Intellectual, and the essay, "The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age." The point is also emphasized in the first lecture in Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism course.

While conceding the point that the professional intellectuals determine the course of the country's culture, it is curious that Republicans (and Reagan, especially) have won so many state and national elections, since the lib intellectuals despise and scorn Republicans and conservatives. So, if they completely dominated the political culture, we would have had practically zero elected Republicans.

Even though there are a considerable number of intellectuals who call themselves "conservative," they constitute a very small fraction of the intellectual "class" as a whole. The number of academics that would further distinguish themselves from conservatives, the libertarians/classical liberals and Objectivists, is even smaller.

The liberal intellectual domination in the book publishing field is so overwhelming, that "The Death of Conservatism," by Sam Tannenhaus (editor of The New York Times Book Review), a longish article in The New Republic, has been quickly and pretentiously transformed into a hardback book (of around 50 or so pages!). I found it very prominently displayed in the local mass market book store chain, Borders. This pamphlet-sized "book," is significant only in that its title demonstrates a "wish-fulfillment/fantasy" of the lib intellectual establishment.

I have found that many chain book store managers are frustrated left wing intellectuals. Given their beliefs I'm surprised that you can even find Rand or any other right wing thinker. I'm sure they would give Tannehaus's pamphlet a big display.