The Rewrite Squad

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 29:18 through 30:52

Q: I think your fans like personal freedom—the same type of freedom Howard Roark upheld when he overthrew the traditional architects of his age. I would like to know how the concept of personal freedom is linked in your eyes to your dichotomy between Apollo and Dionysus?

Judge Lurie: Well, that was really the talk that was given tonight. (Starts to look for another questioner.)

A: I would like to answer this young man with one sentence. You're quite right, of course; the whole talk was devoted to it, but he didn't quite get it. [Laughter] I will sum it up.

There is no such thing as personal freedom, or personal rights, or personal anything that stands above and against reason and reality.

All your rights, all your freedoms, are based on reality and derived from the observation of reality by reason. You don't have the personal freedom to be irrational—not in morality, you don't.

In a free society, of course, you can do it. I mean, you can, uh, do whichever you want, so long as you don't break my rights or the rights of others. But if you ask how I reconcile this with Roark or any of my heroes, there is no such thing as rights apart from and against reason and reality. That's a very important thing to remember.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 170)

After editing out the reference to Howard Roark, Bob Mayhew had to make up a question to fit his cut-down rendition, so he went with "Don't I have the right to be irrational?"

[Brant Gaede]

It's hard to believe, Robert, important work on an Internet forum, but you're doin' it here.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 38:27 through 42:48

Q: Miss Rand, should the state prescribe the conditions of marriage, or should it allow individuals to make the contracts among themselves, instead of laws where a person gets married and is subject to various divorce laws and everything? Should individuals be allowed to make any contract they want among…

Judge Lurie: I get it, I get it. (Paraphrases the question)

A: You mean the relationship, or the marriage ceremony, the formality?

JL: You mean the ceremony itself…

Q: No, the contractual relationship…

A: The kind of relationship.

JL restates again: Can the state undertake to control the obligations of marriage by means of law?

A: Well, yes, and it is a very important and difficult subject: the issue of preserving the rights of children. Because if, ehh, ehh, two people are married—and the same even applies to unmarried couples, only there the issue of proof more difficult—there, there is the possibility that they will want or, by chance, may have children, and once the child is born, he is entitled to su, support until such time as he is self-supporting. Therefore, there is a very complex issue here of protecting the lives, rights of children.

There is another complex issue: property rights. Uhh, now, the husband and wife can certainly make any arrangements they want, but the law usually, eyuh, as it stands today is a little bit too much on the side of the woman, uhh, and it's a little old-fashioned because there was a time when the woman was at the economic mercy of her husband, and to, today she is not, not in the same way, and, uh, perhaps a great deal of irrationality and contradiction, particularly between different state laws, a great could be improved, in the specific marriage laws of a country, provided the basic principles are not arbitrary and are clearly stated.

[Edit or dropout on the tape]

You see, the government cannot undertake to enforce any kind of contract that you and a girl, let us say, would decide to make. If your contract falls under a certain legal category, then the government can undertake to enforce it, but you couldn't, uh, have some contradiction or something perhaps impossible of enforcement, and, say, uh, this is your marriage contract, now you expect the government to enforce it. Uhh, this is one of the reasons why there has to be uniform code of law, why individuals cannot make their own contract in that way, but, strictly speaking, you know, it wouldn't be necessary.

The proper marriage laws, and even the mixed ones, today are such that if the two parties wanted to make a certain kind of legal contract about their relationship, I don't see it—and Judge Lurie will correct me—I don't think the law would interfere.

JL: You mean, if they wanted without a marriage license, for example, to say "You're my wife, you're my husband, we publicly announce it." Is that what you're saying?

A: Oh, no. I think, uh, that's not how I understood. That's not the ceremony, but the content of the marriage; it's what kind of relationship you have, you know…

Jl: In law. Well, this, of course will vary, because we have, curiously enough, 51 sovereign states. We have the 50 states, and each state has its own laws with regard to the consequences visited upon those who marry. [Laughter] And then we have the sovereign—that's right—the sovereign over all, the US government, where insofar as Federal territory is concerned, there you have the laws of the Congress. And so one would not be able to answer this without a specific question.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 18-19):

This is an important and difficult subject, because of two complex issues: the rights of children and property rights.

If two people are married, they may want and have children. Once a child is born, he is entitled to support until he is self-supporting.

In general, a husband and wife can make any property arrangements they want. But today, the law is a bit too much on the side of the woman. There was a time when the woman was at the economic mercy of her husband; today, she is not. There is a great deal of irrationality and contradictions in many state marriage laws, so there's room for improvement, provided the basic principles are clearly stated and not arbitrary.

The government cannot undertake to enforce any contract two people decide to make. If your contract falls under a certain legal category, then the government can undertake to enforce it; but it cannot be asked to enforce some contradictory contract. This is one reason why there must be a uniform code of law—why individuals are not entirely free to make contracts on any matter. But proper marriage laws—and even the mixed ones of today—allow two parties to make legal contracts regarding their relationship.

Mayhew makes the answer appear much crisper and more definite than it was in the original.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 42:51 through 44:06

Q: Miss Rand, if the Catholic Church were to endorse birth control, which segments of this country and which countries probably would statistically would have fewer births, and abstain less?

A: I would, euhh, not be able to answer that at all; I have no such statistics and the, particularly, uh, uh, no evidence on which to guess. Particularly, we do not know to what extent Catholics are obeying the birth control injunction. Certainly some of them do, and certainly, ehh, this prohibition has made it very hard on many of them. Still, to make a judgment about a country as a whole, you'd have to have at least some idea how many Catholics are really practicing.

I hope a majority are not obeying the encyclical, uh, but no one can know or guess.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 44:07 through 46:00

Q: Has the economic situation gone too far, so that Mr. Nixon will find it impossible to avoid an economic disaster?

A: I wouldn't venture to say. I am not sure that even Mr. Nixon could say, or Mr. Johnson, or anyone.

The situation is such today that certainly an economic disaster could occur, at any moment; we're in a dreadful state. But nobody could say with certainty that it has to occur, and that we may not, perhaps, have time to avoid a major collapse. That we certainly will have economic troubles is certain, though we cannot predict the date.

And I hope it will not, in effect, form the idea that if some bad recession or depression happens during the Nixon administration well, you see, it falls to Republicans, because that it isn't the way it works. Each administration inherits a certain burden and, euh, has to untangle the consequences of the preceding one.

Now nobody knows when, in the present state of the economy, uh, a collapse may occur, or not a full collapse, then a serious recession or depression, and, uhh, it's precisely at that time that we would be very lucky that Mr. Humphrey's not in Washington. That is all I can say, but as to the specific, journalistic, uhh, economic state of today, I do not know, and, uhh, even economic specialists disagree in their prediction ab, about narrow range of events.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 59)

I couldn't say. The situation is such that an economic disaster could occur at any moment, and we'll certainly have economic trouble. But nobody could say with certainty that disaster is unavoidable. Incidentally, if a recession or depression occurs during the Nixon administration, don't blame the Republicans. Each administration inherits a certain burden and must untangle the consequences of the preceding one. If economic disaster does occur, we'll be lucky Hubert Humphrey is not in Washington.

Mayhew takes a rambling answer and makes it look more sharply focused than it really was. In fact, this sort of answer (there aren't many on the recordings I transcribed) could be reasonably left out of a published collection, because it's a dud.

[Robert Campbell]

A source mined heavily by Bob Mayhew is the Q&As from Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lecture series on The Philosophy of Objectivism. After each of Lectures 5 through 12, Ms. Rand contributed some or all of the answers.

I was in no hurry to tackle this mass of material, despite the interest of many of the answers, until I found out that Roger Bissell had transcribed every lecture and every Q&A from the series. Roger has graciously lent me his transcripts, which I am checking against the audio recordings currently sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore. I have occasionally tweaked Roger's transcripts or made small corrections (and put back in some hesitation pauses and side remarks he wasn't aiming to include) but have not had to make a lot of changes. Much easier than transcribing from scratch!

It also helps that the speakers during the 1976 series are well recorded, on mike, with much less distortion, audience noise, or other sources of trouble that infest the Ford Hall Forum tapes. And Rand often seems more at ease during the 1976 series than during some of the Ford Hall Forum sessions.

I wanted to start with Lecture 6 on Reason because Ayn Rand answered no fewer than 15 questions, two of them in speechlets of more than 10 minutes each, and Dr. Mayhew used no fewer than 11 of them in Ayn Rand Answers. Just the Lecture 6 material will be keeping me busy for a little while, but I plan to get around to the other lectures after a while.

Because written questions were submitted in advance, Ayn Rand read the questions out loud, and questioners are hardly ever heard speaking from the audience. So I will highlight the questions by putting them in bold print.

Each lecture has been put on 2 or 3 CDs, so when I indicate "CD1" or what have you, that means CD1 from the lecture in question.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Philososophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 6, Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 0:00 through 1:20

Is there any validity to the technique of the devil's advocate in philosophical discussions, or as a training device for political discussion?

Yes, it's a very good technique, and it's, euh, very valuable usage in arguments, debates, or discussion. You know what it, uh, means. Being the devil's advocate means: assuming the role opposite to your own conviction, and trying to advocate the ideas which the devil would throw at you. Uh, that's a technique for training yourself to be able to answer every possible objection. You deliberately devise ideas that an intelligent opponent could give you and see whether you have an answer for them. It's also a good way to test, euh, your own ideas, because, if you find as a devil's advocate some argument against your own convictions which you can't answer, you'd better answer it—or correct your thinking, that's one or the other.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 178-179)

Mayhew's trimming eliminates "You deliberately devise ideas that an intelligent opponent could give you and see whether you have an answer for them."

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 6, Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 12:33 through 13:13

If a man makes an arbitrary claim and you discuss it, is it rationally valid to explain why you will not discuss it; that is, that arbitrary claims are with, without reference to reality?

Well, there's no rule about it. The answer is: if you wish. If you think that the person you're talking to, who is making an arbitrary statement, doesn't fully realize the issue or is open to reason, you can explain why you will dismiss him. Uhh, most cases….it's not worth explaining. But, it's as you wish, as you judge the particular situation.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included

This is one of just two statements that have come to light from Rand herself on the subject of arbitrary assertions. The off-handedness of the answer supports my case that the doctrine was Leonard Peikoff's creation, not Rand's own.

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 6, Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 6:55 through 8:22

If the presidential election was to be between Carter and Reagan, would you have supported Carter on the basis of the anti-abortion Reagan stand?

No, I would not vote, because you can vote only so long as you think a given candidate has more virtues than flaws. But when it comes to two candidates, and you regard both of them as evil, then there is no lesser evil. You just don’t vote. For instance, I abs, abstained in 1952 and, uh, 1956. I did not vote for Eisenhower, and I couldn’t vote for Stevenson.

It’s not wrong, euhh, not to vote, in spite of all the things you hear to the contrary. Not voting, particularly by people who understand the issues, is also a form of voting. You are simply declaring that you don’t want any of the above. Uhh, I certainly could not vote for either Reagan or Carter, and Mr. Ford’s stand on abortion is a disgrace. All I can say is, he has some redeeming qualities, but, uh, eb, my tolerance is very badly strained right now, I’m sorry to say. Still, you have to vote for him, because the opposition is hopeless.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 69)

Mayhew did lots of rewording, for no apparent reason. Rand didn’t use the word “abstain” in her answer, but Mayhew is somehow convinced that she should have.

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 6, Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 6:15 through 6:54

Now this is just somebody’s joke, but apparently it’s serious.

My college biology text states the following definition: “Plants are living things which are studied by people who say they are studying plants, botanists [Rand snickers]. Animals are living things which are studied by people who say they are studying animals, zoologists.” Please comment.

My comment would be unprintable.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 6, Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 13:15 through 14:46

Now, this is a question I would like to answer, but it, I would really need at least half an hour or an hour to make a speech on it. So, I'll merely acknowledge.

Would you please comment on the current campaign in the press and media reviving the attacks on McCarthyism, etc.? For example, there is Lillian Hellman's book Scoundrel Time, a movie, The Front, about alleged blacklisted writers. Would you give us the true story of what happened, uhh, during that period and explain why the issue is being revived now?

It is too horrible and too dirty an issue to discuss, and you're looking at one of the victims, so why ask me? It is true that I could tell you a great deal about it. Let me say only this, that with all these filthy, goddamned Communists boasting about their "courage," such as Lillian Hellman, who did confess that she was a member of the Party, she changed her mind, later—how many people died in this country and particularly in Russia or in Russian-occupied countries because of Miss Hellman's ideas, God only knows. Nobody could compute the evil of what those Communists in the 30s did.

CD 3, track 1, 0:00 through 8:03

To begin with, they pushed this country into World War II. What would have been a better policy? Let Hitler march into Russia, as he had started. Let the two dictatorships fight each other, and then the West should take on the winner. Whoever won that contest, then, uh, England, France, and the United States should finish off whoever won the conflict. And maybe today the world would be safe, except, of course, the issue is not political, it's philosophical. Nobody would have the idea of what to do. But in the meantime, people like Lillian Hellman were the ones who were pushing the policy of this country to the left and in support of only one country—not the United States—Soviet Russia.

So were all the other "McCarthy's victims" of the time. They were all either Party members or like one famous case of a woman who was not a Communist: She was serving in the government at a responsible government post and had been a member of an organization listed as subversive by the Attorney General eighteen times. She was a member of eighteen different subversive organizations and claimed, when McCarthy exposed her, that she didn't know they were subversive. And she had the nerve to work in government. I mean, that's what those people were like.

What they were demanding is the right to lie. Nobody prosecuted them for being Communist, but the people didn't want to deal with Communists, because they were all underground Communists. They weren't so, openly. And they resented the fact that the government demanded that they state under oath, were they Communists or not. Now that is not interfering with their freedom. There is no freedom to deceive people. If you are being punished for being Communist, that's different—I mean, punished by the government. But if it's private employees, employers who don't want to employ a Communist, who consider properly that that's an enemy of this country—and worse, it's an enemy of mankind—if a man does not want to employ a person, that person has no right to lie about it. Yet, that's what those wonderful little martyrs—oh, they were so brave—they were suddenly forbidden to lie to Hollywood employers.

And now, take the other side of the picture: the big Hollywood hearings, the first hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee. There were the Hollywood Ten, you know, which were the Communists; and then the rest were the so-called "friendly witnesses," and I was one of them (they were friendly to the Committee). We were called in order to discuss Communist penetration in Hollywood, what experience did we have with Communism, and what did we observe. My particular testimony was about pictures, the content of Communist propaganda.

Do you know what's happened to the "friendly witnesses"? I don't know of one who has remained working in Hollywood. To begin with, I am not a victim in this respect, because I had a long-term contract, and I, euhh, canceled the contract later for my own reasons, for the reason that I wanted to finish Atlas Shrugged, uh, so I was not fired for appearing in Washington, and I cannot claim to be a victim in this respect. I was a victim for years and years before The Fountainhead. I couldn't find work in Hollywood anywhere. But then The Fountainhead was too much for them, ehh, or at least they could not stop producers from hiring me after The Fountainhead. In regard to the hearings, I was not a victim. Some of the friendly witnesses have died since—as, for instance, uh, Gary Cooper. He was one of the witnesses against the Communists and a very good one. Uhh, he died. But most of those who didn't have a name or a contract at the time—and that was younger, junior writers, and some prominent writers who were freelance. All those who were not under contract to a major studio were out of work very shortly thereafter, crudely shortly. Within a year, most of them were not working. Some of them were very prominent—for instance, Adolphe Menjou. He was a very prominent actor, but he wasn't under contract, he was freelancing. He got fewer and fewer jobs, and in about a year, maybe a year and a half, he could find no jobs.

Morrie Ryskind was a very prominent writer. He is the author of Of Thee I Sing and many, euh, movies and stage plays of the time. He was getting $3,000 a week, which was very large money at the time, and had more, euh, work than he could handle. After he appeared at the Hollywood hearings as a friendly witness, he could not find work in Hollywood after that, not one offer. The worst case I know was a young junior writer, uhh, whose name was Fred Niblo Jr. He was the son of a famous silent days director, Fred Niblo. A junior writer, by the way, is someone who is just beginning, so that his salary is not yet….the salary has to be under $500 a week, that's a "junior." Within a year after appearing at the Hollywood hearings, he had to go to work at Lockheed in an airplane factory in Hollywood. He could not get work anywhere.

I would like someone, if he wanted to do something humanitarian, do a research project on the original hearings and on the witnesses, the friendly witnesses, and what has become of them in the time since—the monstrous, the unspeakable silent blacklist exercised by those same goddamned Communists, exercised in Hollywood. But it's never called "political." What happens is that those talented people who were in demand suddenly lose their talent. Now, it's true, Hollywood producers are very cowardly—not as bad as sometimes claimed—but they don't have very strong convictions; they're really ignorant. And the Communists who work their way into every position of influence will exercise that influence. And every one of the friendly witnesses has suffered for his testimony one way or the other. That's never mentioned.

Thank you, my time is almost up, so I'll take some, euhh, more pleasant questions. This is a horror, but I'm glad to tell you about it.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 83-85)

Mayhew treats this answer with more respect than usual, perhaps on account of his own interest in the subject; it is not compressed or rearranged.

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 6, Q&A

CD 2, track 3, 10:50 through 14:34

(Rand mentions that the same person has submitted three versions of this question to her and Leonard Peikoff; she has picked the most detailed version.)

My question is about the criterion of correspondence as a test of truth—criterion of correspondence, keep that in mind. Granted, an idea which corresponds to its object is indeed true. But how can one determine whether or not his idea does, in fact, bear a perfect correspondence to its object? Ss, to make this determination requires the use of some criterion other than correspondence. But if another test of truth has to be applied, the correspondence criterion became, becomes merely a definition of “truth,” not a decisive test. Besides a certain correspondence between an idea and reality, we still need to apply a test that will dis, disclose the precise degree of similarity between what we think and what actually exists. If so, what is it? How does it work?

Now, first of all, the most important thing here is the enormous error that this questioner is making, and it’s a good example of the fact that if you make an error in your basic premise, all the consequences will be false, and it will lead you to impossible questions such as this. The error is the idea that something other than correspondence is needed to establish correspondence. In other words, if I give you the same problem in, transposed to a different realm: if you say that someone is beautiful, you will be asked, say, “Yeah, but we need some criterion other than beauty to establish beauty.” Well, beauty is a complex criterion. You could say, “a perfect harmony,” or any definition you wish. But you wouldn’t say “something other than beauty.” You would merely get a more precise concept of “beauty.”

When you’re asked to establish correspondence—now, please, focus on the reality of the abstraction—what does it mean to establish correspondence? It means: to establish the similarity or the identity of A and B. It’s to say: A and B are similar or identical (or different). What criterion do you need to establish that? You’re asked to compare some entities. If you have an extra criterion, the first thing that you discard is reality. As a consequence of the demand for a criterion, the first thing that you discard is reality.

CD 2, track 4, 0:00 through 8:03

As a consequence of the demand for a criterion, this questioner regards his ideas as something separate from reality to begin with. This is a good example of Rationalism at its ridiculous stage, uhh, because, look at: you’ve got to disclose the precise degree of similarity between what we think and what actually exists. How are you going to do that? How are you going to have the precise degree? Are you going to have such an idea as, well, “My ideas correspond to reality approximately; I don’t know exactly how much, but I think one-tenth of a percent”? [Laughter from audience.] When you speak of ideas, if you are exact, you have to be able to say what is it in reality that your ideas represent, just as—using the minimal tool of ideas, meaning: the concept—unless you can say what are the objects designated by your concept, you have no moral or epistemological right to use that concept. You have to have the knowledge of what your concept refers to out there in reality before you can use it. And if you know how to use concepts, then you know how to organize them into grammatically correct sentences, and you know what it is that your sentences denote in reality. The question you have to follow in your mind constantly is, “What am I talking about?” If only to yourself, “What am I thinking about?” You do not draw any conclusion until and unless you can point out to the facts of reality and say, “I have concluded this about that.” That’s the test of correspondence. If, for instance, you see somebody pick, picking another man’s pocket, and you say, “I see that this man stole another man’s wallet,” that’s correspondence to reality. If, however, you see that action, you see the theft, and you say, “I don’t know, I can’t be sure of what I saw,” then your statement does not correspond to reality. No special criterion is needed to establish that fact. Only two things are needed: the reality and the kind of intellectual identification in the form of ideas that you give to that reality or make of it.

Your thinking is not a separate, uhh, attribute or a collection of Platonic objects apart from reality, which you then compare to reality. The manner in which this questioner is asking the question shows the Platonic element: “the degree of similarity between what we think and what actually exists.” What we think, if it is at all within the category of proper thinking, is a mental classification or identification of what actually exists.

An, another Platonic, and very dangerous, element in this question is the word “perfect correspondence.” Now, be very careful in your use of the word “perfect.” It’s a very mystical concept. If anything, it does apply in the realm of ethics. But to apply it in the realm of cognition and epistemology is extremely dangerous, because what would be “perfect correspondence”? Well, according to some of the mystical uses of the word “perfect,” it would have to be “omniscient,” that if you have formed an idea about a given object, you know everything about that object, and therefore your idea is in perfect correspondence with the object. That’s not the way human mind works, that’s not rational epistemology.

What should you be concerned with in regard to correspondence to reality? Well, only two very simple rules: that if you draw conclusions about the facts of reality, which you want, then, to claim are true, your consideration of the facts has not omitted anything relevant to your conclusions, has included everything that is relevant and not omitted anything that’s relevant—in other words, that you have considered everything open to your knowledge about a given fact or set of facts, ehh, so that when you say, “My conclusion is true,” you have used all of the knowledge available to you and have not indulged in any evasion. That is the only, uh, necessity, or the only rules, for establishing that, uhh, your conclusions do correspond to reality. But the test here, really, the touchstone is: What is out there? What is reality? Not what kind of criterion and double criterion you will establish for preconceived ideas somehow formed in your mind and detached from reality.

Now, the second question submitted today is exactly … it corresponds perfectly [laughter from audience]. [Reads the second question, a slightly briefer version of what appears above. The second question, however, ends with, “Help!”]. Well, the help is very simple. Look at reality. You do not have ideas apart from reality. If you find that you do, that you hold ideas and you don’t know whether they’re true or false, that’s a sign of some variant or another of Rationalism. So, forget all your preconceived ideas, look at the fact in question, and ask yourself “What are the facts,” identify them, then draw conclusion and then say, “My idea is true, because I can point out that the fact on which it is based, and I have considered all the facts.” Now there is another variant of this, but briefer, so I think the issue is clear enough. Uhh, let’s take something a little simpler.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 156-158)

The error here is assuming that something other than correspondence is required to establish correspondence. Take the same error in a different realm: If you say someone is beautiful, you’ll need a criterion other than beauty to establish beauty. But if you’ve established that beauty is, say, a perfect harmony of elements, then you don’t need something other than beauty to establish that someone is beautiful.

To establish correspondence means to establish the similarity between, or the identity of, A and B. What other criterion do you need? If you introduce another criterion, the first thing to go is reality. The questioner regards his ideas as something separate from reality. This is extreme rationalism. How are you going to determine the precise degree of similarity between what we think and what exists? Will you say, “My ideas correspond to reality about one-tenth of one percent?” When you speak of ideas, to be exact you have to must be able to say what in reality your ideas refer to. In using concepts—the minimal tool of ideas—unless you can indicate what’s designated by your concept, you have no moral or epistemological right to use it. You must first know what your concept refers to in reality. If you know how to use concepts and organize them into grammatically correct sentences, then you must know what it is your sentences denote in reality. The questions you must have in your mind constantly are: “What am I thinking about?” “What am I talking about?” Draw no conclusion until and unless you can point to the facts of reality and say, “I have concluded this about that.” That’s the test of correspondence. For instance, if you see somebody picking another man’s pocket, and say, “This man stole another man’s wallet,” that’s correspondence to reality. If, however, you see this and say: “I don’t know; I can’t be sure what I saw,” then your statement does not correspond to reality.

No special criterion is needed to establish correspondence. What’s needed is reality and the proper kind of intellectual identification. Your thinking is not a separate attribute or collection of Platonic objects that you compare to reality. The idea of the degree of similarity between what we think and what exists is Platonic. Proper thinking is a mental identification or classification of what exists.

Another dangerous Platonic element in this question is the notion of perfect correspondence. Be careful in using “perfect.” It’s applicable in the realm of ethics; but in the realm of cognition, it is extremely dangerous. It’s a mystical concept. What would “perfect” correspondence be? According to some mystical uses, it would have to be “omniscience”—knowing everything about some object. But that’s not how the human mind works; that’s not rational epistemology.

In regard to correspondence to reality, you need only be concerned with two simple rules: In drawing a conclusion you claim is true, you must have (1) included everything relevant to your conclusion, and (2) omitted nothing relevant. In other words, you have considered everything open to your knowledge about a fact or a set of facts, so that when you say, “My conclusion is true,” you have used all of the knowledge available to you and have not indulged in any evasion. These are the only rules for establishing that your conclusions correspond to realty. But the real test is what’s out there in reality, not some double criteria based on preconceived ideas somehow formed in your mind and detached from reality.

Look at reality. If you find you have ideas detached from reality, that’s a sign of rationalism.

Mayhew tries to trim a 12-minute speechlet, making unmotivated wording changes (such as “the first thing to go” instead of “the first thing you discard”} and leaving out many of her explications.

[Brant Gaede]

The thing that stands out in the previous post is how Rand pretty much savages the questioner.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

The thing that stands out in the previous post is how Rand pretty much savages the questioner.

--Brant

Brant,

Mayhew toned them down in his edited version, but the rips at the questioner still come through.

I thought that the question was a really good one (though I wish the questioner had left the issue of "perfect" correspondence off to the side) and that Rand had real trouble with it.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

The thing that stands out in the previous post is how Rand pretty much savages the questioner.

--Brant

Brant,

Mayhew toned them down in his edited version, but the rips at the questioner still come through.

I thought the question was a really good one (though I wish the questioner had left the issue of "perfect" correspondence off to the side) and that Rand had real trouble with it.

Robert Campbell

Based both on my direct and indirect experience with her, if she didn't like the question she first dealt with it by attacking the poor schmuck who asked it. If that wasn't a good option she would attack the question itself as if it were a moral agent. Intellectual give and take wasn't her forte. She hardly ever did it; she wouldn't have been in control or guaranteed dominant. It cost her her friendship with John Hospers. If it hadn't happened in Boston it would have happened soon enough. That was her single best philosophical relationship with Peikoff being the worst. (Someone like Binswanger is too insignificant to consider.) And for what it's worth, the philosophical discussions appended to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology are no better qua Rand than all the other highly edited junk illustrated on this thread. A serious person has to heavily discount it.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

And for what it's worth, the philosophical discussions appended to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology are no better qua Rand than all the other highly edited junk illustrated on this thread. A serious person has to heavily discount it.

Brant,

I am getting more and more skeptical of the edited material from the epistemology workshops, precisely on account of what I've been learning about Bob Mayhew's editing.

You may have noted that in the answers after Lecture 6 in this series, there was one notably vague and noncommittal item on responding to arbitrary assertions. Mayhew left it out of his book. I'm really interested now to find out how Rand used the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion in her workshops; it appears in just one paragraph of the Binswanger rendition.

Of course, the editing of the workshop material was done by Harry Binswanger rather than Bob Mayhew—not that this is much of a confidence-enhancer...

If I ever do submit a request to the Ayn Rand Archives, it will be to hear the tapes from those workshops and see the raw transcripts from them.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 49:32 through 52:18

Q: Miss Rand, would governmental control of drugs and narcotics be consistent with Objectivism?

A: Uh, by drugs, do you mean medical drugs, or narcotic drugs?

Q: Medical drugs.

A: Well, no, government control of medical drugs is completely improper. The only, ehh, appropriate thing would be that if somebody put out improper drugs that caused harm, ehh, or misrepresents the nature of the drugs he is selling, that is what the laws against fraud are for. He should then be prosecuted, if he is caught in peddling improper or, uh, fraudulent drugs. But government control does not prevent that possibility, and, therefore, if it's about medical drugs, no, there should not be any government control beyond a quick and efficient legal system where one could go to court and prove one's case, if one discovers that some manufacturer of drugs is dishonest.

Now, narcotics is something else. Uh, if you mean dope addiction, I would say even there the government should not, uh, forbid it, except in the case of minors and children. Certainly drugs should not be sold to children, but adults, if they want again to hurt themselves, it's their privilege.

I am not too sure, but merely as an indication, that they tried it in England, where they, ehh, uh, suspended the prohibition of drugs, of narcotics, so that, uh, nar, uhh, narcotic addicts could buy openly, and they found that it, uhh, minimized the use of drugs because then, the nar, the drug addicts didn't have the incentive, uhh, to, uh, push, as they say, you know, to sell the drugs to young children and start new innocent victims, because they need the money desperately to pay for underworld, smuggled drugs.

I have since also heard that something went wrong with England's plan, and that there were contrary reports that it didn't work out so well, so I say it only for whatever it is worth, it is an issue very much worth investigating.

Theoretically, it does sound likely that if you made the drug traffic open, you would cut narcotic addiction and you certainly would cut down crime. But that is an issue for doctors and criminologists ultimately.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 15)

Read Mayhew's book to see how he puts answers like this one through the flavor-remover.

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 8, Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 7:17 to 8:33

Leonard Peikoff:

I’ll try to answer briefly. Phew, uh, if there’s anything I can do briefly before I ask Miss Rand to come up. (Sighs) Well, I’ll take this on lying as the end; ahem, two questions on lying … which I’ll answer very briefly.

Does not volunteering the entire truth on a certain matter constitute a lie?

No…Beg pardon? (to Ayn Rand)...Well, then I’d be glad to hear your answer when you come up. I took this question, not volunteering the truth constitute a lie, I took it as meaning, if somebody asks you, uh, a question, or doesn’t ask you a question, actually, and you simply out of the blue go up to someone and say uh, uh, like—this is what I took “volunteering” to mean—uh, “You, uh, are wearing a particularly ugly suit today.” If he doesn’t volunteer that, and doesn’t say anything, or simply says, when asked…it’s different. It’s not the whole truth, but I didn’t see it as taking a lie. Do you disagree with that? Shall I let you, Miss…? (to Ayn Rand) Just for the tape people, Miss Rand, Miss Rand said she disagrees. So I’ll put down on the record that when she comes up, which I’ll give her a chance to do in a second, she can comment on that.

CD 2, track 5, 8:45 through 9:18

Eah, Is it morally objectional, objectionable and hypocritical to recite the words “so help me God,” when taking an oath?

No, because it’s a simply meaningless ritual, uh, and in that, in the context in which it’s done, it doesn’t, uhh, uh, um, uh, prove anything.

OK, those were two on lying. And now, uh, I’ll ask Miss Rand to come up and she has a few … thank you.

CD 2, track 5, 9:19 through 12:20

Ayn Rand:

Sorry that I spoke out of turn, but I understood the question somewhat differently. Uh, it could very well have been taken as Dr. Peikoff took it, and in which case his answer is correct. But what I heard in it, as I heard the question, was: if you are discussing an issue with somebody, you’ve undertaken to answer but you don’t volunteer the whole truth. Now, that is very vicious, vicious form of lying. It, there are many situations in which you don’t have to answer, particularly family situations. If you disagree with your parents—and you should never attempt to convert your parents—and you don’t want them to be unhappy, uh, on certain issues, you just don’t answer. Or, if they force the issue, you answer the minimum; that is all right. But the kind of iss, euh, situation which I would regard as extremely vicious is the following: you discuss some issue with a friend, or even a stranger, but you agree to discuss it, yet you do not tell the full truth. That is more misleading than if you were lying. Generally speaking, it is very evil to claim honesty, uh, when, euh, you are deceiving somebody. If you haven’t made any such claim, it’s bad enough to lie. But to say, “Remember, I’m telling you the truth, and I’m honest,” and then lie, is monstrous.

And it’s incidentally in this respect that I’m very curious to see what Mr. Carter is going to do. All candidates deceive their audience to a greater or lesser extent, but he made a big issue of trust and honesty and openness in everything. All right, let’s see. Mayb, maybe he’ll live up to it, in which case, I’ll be delighted to be wrong; but I doubt it very much, because what he was promising cannot be done in politics; and, therefore, what he was doing was telling you the truth up to a point, but not the full truth.

Which, euh, is the reason why the usual oath that you are supposed to take in court, euhh, is very wise, when you’re supposed to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And it’s the second, “the whole truth,” that is very important, if you are giving the impression or have undertaken to discuss something with someone honestly. Euhh, you don’t have to discuss, but to discuss partially and pretend that, it’s, well, you’re honest, yet you are not volunteering the whole truth that’s relevant, is very vicious.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 129)

That is a very vicious form of lying. There are many situations in which you don’t have to answer, particularly certain family situations. If you disagree with your parents—and incidentally you should never attempt to convert them—and you don’t want them to be unhappy, don’t answer, or if they force the issue, answer the minimum. That’s all right. What I regard as vicious is when you agree to discuss an issue with someone, yet you do not tell the whole truth. That’s more misleading than simply lying, which is bad enough. It’s especially evil to claim honesty when you are deceiving somebody. That’s why the oath you’re ask to take in court is so wise: You’re supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Mayhew really put the chop to this answer. He makes no reference to Leonard Peikoff’s initial response or Ayn Rand’s decision to wade in. He cuts the remarks on Jimmy Carter’s pretending not to lie to voters, and tones down the condemnatory language.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does "To Whom It May Concern" come to mind?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You know, when you're not up to speed on this stuff Rand can sound pretty good. When you get up to speed you're sure to have questions and exceptions that might put her on the spot. The admiring, worshipful young especially can get bamboozled.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Does "To Whom It May Concern" come to mind?

Michael

Very sadly, yes.

Bill P

[Reidy]

The remark about Carter is just what people are saying about Obama. Once again, Rand was decades ahead of her time.

[Robert Campbell]

Yep, she called Jimmy Carter's number.

But for all of those who were taken in by him, there were many others who could see that, if elected, he was headed for a fall.

At the time, his "I will never lie to you" rhetoric helped to convince me that he was going to be a really lousy president.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 8, Q&A

CD 2, track 5, 12:21 through 14:24

Ayn Rand: All right, now I have two questions, which, in a peculiar way, are, uk, epistemologically related to each other:

The first one:

Last week [in the Q&A after Lecture 7], Miss Rand voiced a strongly pessimistic view of the future. How can she say she is glad to be old, when one of the most important concepts of her philosophy is that irrationality is never to be taken seriously?

What in hell gave you that impression? I have never said nor hinted nor could be taken indirectly to mean that one of the most important conc, concepts of my philosophy is such a childish piece of inaccuracy. At best, a metaphor, but, at worst, plain nonsense.

The important concepts of philosophy are your metaphysics, your epistemology, your ethics, and to some extent, politics. I would say the most important parts of my philosophy are my definition of concepts, of the form, concept-formation, my ethics, and my discovery or d, def, definition in politics that, uh, evil, the violation of rights consists of the initiation of force. Now, those are important philosophical things; but rati, "irrationality is never to be taken seriously"? Where did … I would really like the questioner afterwards to approach me and tell me where he or she got that—you don't have to get up in public. The only thing I can imagine or guess—and, if so, that makes me angrier and in a, in a way, hurt—it's Dagny's line to Galt, "We never had to take any of it seriously." He says, "No, we never had to."

CD2, track 6, 0:00 through 1:49

That's one of the most beautiful things in my, uhh, novel qua novel, qua fiction; and if someone did not understand what was meant by it, I personally would consider it improper to explain. All I could tell you is that it is miles, light years, and metaphysical universes away from an interpretation of that kind.

Now, to drop that and answer the first part of it: umm, why did I say I'm glad to be old? Cause I'm tired of fighting low-grade irrationality. I don't mind fighting serious, philosophical, important examples of irrationality; if there are any left to fight, I'll be very glad to. But, uk, I almost feel, not fully now—don't take me out of context—but almost like Leo in We the Living, who said he can muster the most heroic in his soul to fight lions, but not to fight lice. Uhhh, he gave up a little too early. I've put up a very long fight; and I think I've fought, at least in essence, every crucial evil that I could have observed. To fight somebody like Carter is boring. I think it will be fair division of labor if I leave it up to you. [Laughter and applause.] Thank you very much. That, I think you understood, and I appreciate it.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 165-166):

What in hell gave you that impression? I've never even hinted at the idea that one of the most important philosophical concepts is such a childish piece of inaccuracy. The most important parts of my philosophy are my theory of concepts, my ethics, and my discovery in politics that evil—the violation of rights—consists of the initiation of force.

The only passage that I can imagine gave you this impression—and, if so, it makes me angrier, and hurt—is Dagny's line to Galt: "We never had to take any of it seriously." That's one of the most beautiful passages in my novel qua fiction. But it is light-years away from "Irrationality is never to be taken seriously."

I've written that one problem with Americans is that they don't believe in the reality of evil. You better take evil and irrationality seriously: not in the sense of regarding it as important—not in the sense of letting it determine the course of your life or your choice of career or other key values—but in the sense of not evading its existence. You should do everything in your power (though not at the price of self-sacrifice) to counteract evil and irrationality, which requires taking it seriously. But that is not the meaning of this line from Atlas Shrugged.

Now, why did I say I'm glad to be old? Because I'm tired of fighting low-grade irrationality. I don't mind fighting serious, philosophically important instances of irrationality—if there any left. But I almost feel like Leo in the We the Living, who said he could must the heroic in his soul to fight lions, but not to fight lice. He gave up too early. But I have put up a long fight, and I have fought every crucial evil that I have observed. To fight somebody like Carter is boring. I think it's a fair division of labor if I leave the fight against irrationality to you.

Mayhew spliced in Rand's addendum to this answer (see the next one) as his third paragraph. He's taken some of the vehemence out, and cut a number of details, including Rand's reluctance to explain the meaning of "We never had to take any of it seriously" to anyone who doesn't already get it.

[Robert Campbell]

The Philosophy of Objectivism 1976

Lecture 8, Q&A

CD 2, track 6, 1:50 through 5:36

Now, this is epistemologically wrong—the second question—and that is its connection to the first question:

If the universe is benevolent, why does Kira in We the Living die? Why does Miss Rand protect her, project her as dying, just as she's about to achieve her life's goal of freedom?

Uhh, this is really being concrete-bound. It almost sounds as if I sat there and decided arbitrarily, "Well, now, will I let, let Kira die; will I kill her, or will I let her live?" That isn't the way a novel is written. If you want to know the answer to anything in a novel, ask yourself what the theme is, and then you, euh, the theme will answer your question. The theme of We the Living is: the individual against the state. What I present in the story is the evil of the state, and what it does to its best individuals under its power. If I let Kira escape, then I'm leaving, euhh, the theme with the following conclusion: statism is very bad, but there's hope, because you can always escape abroad. Now, that wasn't the theme of We the Living—not what goes on abroad, but what goes on in a statist state, in a dictatorship. And in Russia, a citizen has no chance to live and no chance to escape. Someone who does escape is an exception, because no borders can be totally closed and people do escape, but nobody will ever know the number of people who died trying to escape from Russia or from any dictatorship. Uhh, therefore, to let Kira escape would be pointless. In the theme, in the context of We the Living, she had to die.

Now, on the… I just remembered, there's something I wanted to add to that first question about taking evil seriously. Look, I have written repeatedly that one of the troubles with Americans is that they don't believe in the reality of evil, they do not really believe how evil evil is. Therefore, you better take evil and, evil or irrationality seriously. It has to be taken seriously. Not in the sense of regarding it as important. Not in the sense of letting it determine the course of your life or your choice of career or your choice of values. But in the sense that you must not evade its existence, and you must do everything within your power—not at the price of self-sacrifice, but as you have the power and the means—to counteract evil, to counteract irrationality, euhh, in the way in which Dr. Peikoff answered and explained very well [in his response to Question 14 after the lecture]. But to do that, you have to take the issue seriously. Uh, only, this is not the same meaning as, euhh, the word had in the context in the scene in, within Atlas Shrugged that I referred to. That one, I don't want to explain [whispered aside] … OK, thank you very much. Thank you.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 190)

Mayhew inserted a reference in square brackets explaining what Rand meant by "concrete-bound." He or his transcriber misheard "live" as "leave" in "a citizen has no chance to live and no chance to escape." He ends up with

In Russia, a citizen cannot count on leaving or escaping.