Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Daniel Barnes]

There aren't a whole lot of SOLOPsists left, but one of them is still congratulating himself.

thank you for making this such a terrific exchange of serious ideas and information, especially those who seem to have "signed in" specifically for this discussion!

I don't know if anyone here has ever gone to Bali. It's a rather crowded place, often with the You Are Now Leaving signs on the same post as the You Are Now Entering signs.

At any rate, an interesting cultural practice has developed there quite possibly as a result of this as well as the warm climate.

That is, people often bathe naked in public. It's men and women alike, and you can see it in villages, or even by the side of the road on busy highways. Why it works without causing the kind of disruption it would in the West is simple: everyone agrees not to see it.

This tacit agreement means that no-one stares, no-one comments, and that it would be the height of rudeness to do so (though there is always the odd unknowing tourist).

I was reminded of this tacit policy of ensuring social cohesion while reading Jim Valliant on Solopassion. Richard Goode calls him out, asking him to present "Rand's derivation of an "ought" from an "is" formally, with clearly labeled premises and a clearly labeled conclusion."

Valliant replies claiming "I have done that", adding that both Rand and Tara Smith have too.

But strangely, he doesn't actually provide the requested derivation. Nor does he supply Rand's, nor Smith's.

So naturally Goode asks again. And again. Valliant then refuses to provide any of these three alleged derivations.

Now that in itself is not so interesting. Valliant is the sort of fellow who will say anything, no matter how ridiculous. Certainly he must know Rand never published such a derivation. I'm unaware of him ever doing likewise (and if Rand had already done it, why would he bother?) Perhaps Tara Smith has done it, but I'm sure if it was any good we would have already heard of it, as she would now be the most famous philosopher of the past 50 years. So Valliant is simply and blatantly lying.

Yet what is interesting is how his correspondents have reacted. No-one at Solo has even commented on this rather outrageous fib, which plus his subsequent evasion would on just about any other internet forum make him a laughingstock.

One can only conclude it's because, like the Balinese, the price of social cohesion at the Solo forum means that when, during these "terrific" exchanges of "serious ideas and information", Valliant tells an obvious lie, everyone agrees not to notice it.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Neil Parille]

Jeff Britting of the Archives told me that 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand will be published later this year by Penguin.

-Neil Parille

[Philip Coates]

> Certainly he must know Rand never published such a derivation. [Daniel]

"The Objectivist Ethics". The entire essay. [Whether you agree with it is a separate issue, but you claim an individual was deliberately lying.]

[Daniel Barnes]

> Certainly he must know Rand never published such a derivation. [Daniel]

"The Objectivist Ethics". The entire essay. [Whether you agree with it is a separate issue, but you claim an individual was deliberately lying.]

Phil,

You really should read more carefully before responding.

In fact, Richard Goode asked:

"Can you help, by presenting Rand's derivation of an "ought" from an "is" formally, with clearly labeled premises and a clearly labeled conclusion?"

My italics.

Valliant claimed that he, Rand, and Smith had done that.

Have they?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Daniel has played word games with this ever since I have started reading his posts.

It goes something like this: Fact: You cannot deduce ought from is. (Essentially, you cannot deduce induction, but I believe Daniel, like a true Popperian, denies the existence of induction, although I am not sure.) Rand said "derive" ought from is, not deduce, but, according to Daniel, she really meant "deduce." (He never says how he knows that, but there it is.) Rand was wrong. Hardee-har-har.

btw - If you wanna be famous, show how you can deduce induction, er... I mean derive ought from is. Until then, hardee-har-har.

That's all, folks.

I wish it were more than that, but it never is.

And it shows up constantly in the oddest places, for example here in a thread devoted to Anne Heller's biography of Rand.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel has played word games with this ever since I have started reading his posts.

Who's playing "word games"? The question is this: is Valliant telling the truth when he claims that he, Rand, and Smith have done this derivation "formally, with clearly labeled premises and a clearly labeled conclusion"?

Yes, or no?

Rand said "derive" ought from is, not deduce, but, according to Daniel, she really meant "deduce."

We are talking about logical derivations, Michael. That's what a deduction is.

If Rand "derived" it in some other way (ie non-logically) then that's fine.

Because there is no problem "deriving", "deducing", or establishing some kind of "relation" between ought and is.

Now, like Ayn Rand, I too can establish a "relation" between ought and is. For example, they are both words in the English language. Or here's another one: they both occur in this post.

The only problem is, and has always been, in establishing a valid logical relation.

But I've explained this all before. You didn't get it then, I don't know if you will get it now, so I no more than you enjoy the prospect of rehashing it for the nth time.

Instead you may care to focus on the far simpler issue of whether Valliant is telling the truth or not....;-)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

Be careful...

Outside the part about Valliant, you just said the same thing I did in different words!

And yes, I generally agree with your criticism of Valliant. Even if I may disagree with you, that does not mean that I think Valliant makes much sense. In this instance, I can't really say if he lied, but, then again, I usually can't tell what he means when he answers questions other than the fact that he usually evades the subject.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

We ought to have a discussion because we is so we are.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

What is is is a matter of factual determination. What ought ought to be is a matter of factual determination. However is and ought are different in that is doesn't involve choice and ought does. So if you can get one ought from an is you can get another too. Or even more. The question then is which ought ought to the best ought and why, not whether ought exists. But ought has to come from is for ought is epistemological while is is metaphysical. You cannot get ought from ought, therefore. It is not how can you get an ought from an is, it is that you will get it regardless and all the time from moral choices. All choices are moral. Or: ought from is is hardwired into our free will free-wheeling brains.

--Brant

Edited February 4, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

That makes perfect sense, but then I remember William B. Jefferson Clinton telling me that it depends on the what the definition of "is" "is"...but then everything gets

[algernonsidney]

That Lundborg interview with Anne Heller looks to me to the product of 60 Minutes-style editing.

I would imagine that anything Ms. Heller said that sounded too favorable to Ayn Rand was cut.

Also, some of the comments sound to me like Anne Heller and others sound less like her, for one reason or another.

Robert Campbell

Most people don't consent to that short an interview.

[algernonsidney]

Peikoff seems to have lost the capacity for independent or critical thought.

He not only defended - but offered - Rand's claim that the streeker at the Academy Awards was a Kantian nihilst as the apex of social criticsm. His main contribution to Objectivism, OPAR, is little more than a repackaging of Rand's ideas with ritualistic denunciations of people and ideas that Rand would have denounced.

-Neil Parille

I think his greatest contribution is his essay on the "Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy."

[algernonsidney]

Mr. Cathcart used to be a competent writer on Objectivist philosophy. He published a decent piece in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

Then he joined SOLOP, took up Perigonian bully-blather, and pretty quickly was going off the deep end.

What happens to these people? I used to consider him as good a friend as anybody in the whole Rand universe.

It seems like a lot of people really went crazy after the WTC.

[algernonsidney]

The Passion in SOLOPassion is not inspired by Barbara's book. Perigo was already on the warpath against her when he and Joe Rowlands split up and SOLOP started. I assume it means "rational passion," which is Perigo's codeword for his latest tantrum.

Rowlands and Perigo are both garbage. I would think that they would get along quite well.

[Neil Parille]

A paperback version of ARWSM has been announced. Here is what Anne Heller told me:

http://doubleday.knopfdoubleday.com/2009/10/05/ask-anne-c-heller-a-question/#comments

Anne C. Heller says:

January 25, 2010 at 4:46 pm

Hi, Neil,

Yes, there is a plan for a paperback edition to be published by Anchor, though I don’t know when. I also don’t know if I’ll be allowed to revise very much, but if I am allowed I will add new material.

Best,

Anne

-Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

Anne Heller has a blog --

http://annecheller.wordpress.com/

-Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Anne Heller's book is now reviewed in The New Individualist, Fall/Winter 2010, pp. 72-79, with a one-page interview on p. 80.

The review and interview are by Will Thomas.

Actually, most of the issue is by Will Thomas.

After this review, I don't think Lindsay Perigo would want Will Thomas to invite him to speak at another TAS event, if somehow Mr. Thomas were still inclined to do so.

Robert Campbell

PS. On p. 78, Mr. Thomas refers to the Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics by title. He doesn't name the author, and uses one adjective ("polemical") to describe the book. Jim Valliant deserves to be referred to explicitly, and his book deserves to be slammed explicitly. But it's a start.

[Chris Grieb]

Anne Heller's book is now reviewed in The New Individualist, Fall/Winter 2010, pp. 72-79, with a one-page interview on p. 80.

The review and interview are by Will Thomas.

Actually, most of the issue is by Will Thomas.

After this review, I don't think Lindsay Perigo would want Will Thomas to invite him to speak at another TAS event, if somehow Mr. Thomas were still inclined to do so.

Robert Campbell

PS. On p. 78, Mr. Thomas refers to the Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics by title. He doesn't name the author, and uses one adjective ("polemical") to describe the book. Jim Valliant deserves to be referred to explicitly, and his book deserves to be slammed explicitly. But it's a start.

Robert; There is a quote "Let's not ask for the moon when we have the stars." It's a start.

You are very correct about Will Thomas doing most of the content in the new TNI.

[Ed Hudgins]

You are very correct about Will Thomas doing most of the content in the new TNI.

Please note that there's an error in the table of contents of the new TNI. It lists the truly prolific Will as author of "The Prophetic Atlas Shrugged." Yet on page 64 you'll see that I, Edward Hudgins, am author of that fine piece!

[Robert Campbell]

Ed,

I saw your by-line on the "Prophetic" article. Didn't realize the contents page had it wrong.

I liked your references to Bonnie Fwank (sorry, Barney Frank) as a Rand villain, and to Detroit as a real-life Starnesville.

Robert Campbell

PS. While you're visiting, can you tell us whether you asked any of the questions that can be heard on the tapes of Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum? I thought I heard you on a couple, but I could have been mistaken....

[Ed Hudgins]

Ed,

I saw your by-line on the "Prophetic" article. Didn't realize the contents page had it wrong.

I liked your references to Bonnie Fwank (sorry, Barney Frank) as a Rand villain, and to Detroit as a real-life Starnesville.

Robert Campbell

PS. While you're visiting, can you tell us whether you asked any of the questions that can be heard on the tapes of Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum? I thought I heard you on a couple, but I could have been mistaken....

Robert - I attended, I believe, 3 Ford Hall Forums in the late '70s, probably 77, 78, and 79. I know I asked questions at 2 and perhaps all 3. I have notes somewhere and will check them to see if I marked down what I asked. Or if you hear someone who sounds like me, let me know what the question was and I'll let you know if it sounds familiar.

Speaking of books, are you familiar with Marc Hauser's Moral Minds? I'm reading it now, along with Robert Wright's The Moral Animal.

Cheers!

[Robert Campbell]

Ed,

Ayn Rand didn't get to the Ford Hall Forum in 1979 or 1980 (I assume this was on account of Frank's final illness and death; she returned in 1981, and was scheduled to appear in 1982).

So could you have been there in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

Here are the ones I thought I heard you on. They're from 1976, 1977, and 1978, respectively:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=82854

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=89832

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=89519

Robert Campbell

PS. I haven't read the Hauser book, though I suppose I should. Hauser is heavily into Chomsky (the innate module side of Chomsky). I had a long conversation with two poster presenters (one, I recall, was a student of his) at Cognitive Science Society in 1998 that was not a confidence builder.

[9thdoctor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKRWwSdeagA

This won't embed, oh well, you can just follow the link.

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Thank you for the pointer to this clip.

In it, Anne Heller explains Rand's position clearly and succinctly (including her disapproval of playing the financial markets as a form of gambling—that's in Atlas Shrugged).

Robert Campbell

[merjet]

Charles Murray's review of the two recent Rand biographies.