tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post1881619811755934400..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Defending Ayn RandUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-45614269093657460212010-03-29T08:07:33.944-04:002010-03-29T08:07:33.944-04:00Such a nice post, it is really interesting, want t...Such a nice post, it is really interesting, want to admire you, you are really done a nice work, Thanks.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.flashpapers.com/" rel="nofollow">Term Paper</a>Term Papershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02145417264678061367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1771211903124639832010-03-03T10:44:55.565-05:002010-03-03T10:44:55.565-05:00Parille: "2. A. Gotthelf reports that he once...Parille: <i>"2. A. Gotthelf reports that he once said to Rand, 'you've done for consciousness what Aristotle did for existence.'"</i><br /><br />I wish I'd said that. It's true.<br /><br /><i>"If Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle and Atlas Shrugged the greatest work of fiction (as Andrew Bernstein and other Objectivists have said), that puts her up there with Newton and Einstein."</i><br /><br />{shrug} Okay, have it your way. I'm not aware that Newton or Einstein wrote fiction at <i>all</i>, nevermind anything on the scale of "Atlas", but I'll stipulate to your comparison.<br /><br />To my mind, the "Epistemology" is the premier achievement in all of 20th century philosophy, at the very least.<br /><br />"Extreme"? Perhaps, but you know what? It really is possible to work on the scale that we're talking about and she did it. If this be extremism, then make the most of it.Billy Beckhttp://www.two--four.net/weblog.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-24004190732690655542010-02-16T21:33:51.683-05:002010-02-16T21:33:51.683-05:00I particularly enjoyed reading this one. Good job...I particularly enjoyed reading this one. Good job, Ed.<br /><br />-FrancisFrancis Luong (Franco)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00786816511157313531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-19404022999698239742010-02-15T22:05:01.618-05:002010-02-15T22:05:01.618-05:00"In just the last couple of years, in ways th..."In just the last couple of years, in ways that could only be characterized as eerily similar, the New Criterion, the Weekly Standard, City Journal, and Commentary have all put out a 'hit' on Ayn Rand and all basically say the very same thing. It’s as though a small faction of conservative and neoconservative 'intellectuals' have agreed that they’ll all borrow (i.e., plagiarize) from the same playbook. <br /><br /><br />" ... In the end, it’s much more likely that Commentary, the Weekly Standard, City Journal and National Review will disappear with the rest of the Mainstream before Ayn Rand’s books and ideas will disappear."<br /><br />Actually, the New York Sun, a conservative newspaper, printed a commentary on Ayn Rand that smeared her here until Friday. I believe this was around 2005, during the celebration of her centennial. The New York Sun disappeared a few years later.:)Joseph Kellardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05792444138935346026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-9975262865853180542010-02-15T15:56:27.152-05:002010-02-15T15:56:27.152-05:003rdParty,
On the Objectivist Living site, you can...3rdParty,<br /><br />On the Objectivist Living site, you can find verbatim transcriptions of a number of Ayn Rand's spoken comments.<br /><br />I invite you to compare these with the renditions that appeared in Robert Mayhew's book <i>Ayn Rand Answers</i> and explain how all of Dr. Mayhew's editing was merely done for clarity.<br /><br />Robert CampbellRobert Campbellhttp://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-59771903298126841412010-02-14T22:16:47.873-05:002010-02-14T22:16:47.873-05:00Anonymous, 3rd party: Ignoring Parille is why I...Anonymous, 3rd party: Ignoring Parille is why I've not said anything more about Rand here. I'm not in the business of devoting my mind and energies to convincing detractors when attempts at persuasion are futile, impossible, or pointless. The dog may chase its own tail. Amusing at first, but old by the second act. Thank you, gentlemen, for your assistance. It is much appreciated.<br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-45508256189302192932010-02-14T20:53:21.337-05:002010-02-14T20:53:21.337-05:00Neil Parille has nothing of value to offer us here...Neil Parille has nothing of value to offer us here and it would be best to completely ignore him. I look at what he has written in his various online efforts and I see little more than cheap pot-shots against Objectivism. If he claims that the writers here have a vested interest in promoting Objectivism, well, one would hope given that the blog plainly exists to apply Rand's philosophy to current events. In contrast, Parille's interest seems little more than rehashing the various smears put forth from the Brandon's. He should take his act somewhere else, and saving that, we should ignore him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-33191475708083038822010-02-14T17:47:01.092-05:002010-02-14T17:47:01.092-05:00Mr. Third Party,
If Harry Binswanger thinks that ...Mr. Third Party,<br /><br />If Harry Binswanger thinks that Rand's ideas are epic and can be defended then he should publish a book or journal article defending this thesis. (I gather he is working on a book). It is unreasonable for Rand's defenders to expect her critics to respond to material in audio format.<br /><br />I have no problem with editing for clarity, but the editing goes beyond that. Jennifer Burns reports that even ARI scholars are upset.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-28624148049581314062010-02-14T13:39:06.344-05:002010-02-14T13:39:06.344-05:00Also -- how does editing for clarity become "...Also -- how does editing for clarity become "cultish"?3rdpartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00538319559767912999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-36539979699961417822010-02-14T13:30:29.729-05:002010-02-14T13:30:29.729-05:00Neil wrote:
2. A. Gotthelf reports that he once s...Neil wrote:<br /><br />2. A. Gotthelf reports that he once said to Rand, "you've done for consciousness what Aristotle did for existence." Rand responded "that's true."<br /><br />This crucial identification IS commensurate with Aristotle's achievement; why should the recognition of that fact be considered "extreme"?<br /><br />If you truly want to know the extent of Ayn Rand's accomplishments, check out Harry Binswanger's talk 'Ayn Rand's Achievements', available in audio format. If you've actually read much of Rand's non-fiction works, you will understand the breathtaking scope of her discoveries and identifications, as enumerated by Mr. Binswanger. He was not exaggerating, or being "cultish".3rdpartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00538319559767912999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-16552469661102547802010-02-14T12:28:01.246-05:002010-02-14T12:28:01.246-05:00Ed and others,
1. Do you approve of what Harriman...Ed and others,<br /><br />1. Do you approve of what Harriman and Mayhew have done to Rand's written and spoken words, apparently with Peikoff's approval? If you want to see what Mayhew has done, here is a link:<br /><br />http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&st=280&p=90569&fromsearch=1&#entry90569<br /><br />Isn't rewriting the record a little "cultish"?<br /><br />2. A. Gotthelf reports that he once said to Rand, "you've done for consciousness what Aristotle did for existence." Rand responded "that's true." If Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle and Atlas Shrugged the greatest work of fiction (as Andrew Bernstein and other Objectivists have said), that puts her up there with Newton and Einstein. Again, I like Rand and consider her important but that's extreme.<br /><br />3. I agree that Rand's life is of secondary importance to her ideas. A very flawed person can come up with good ideas, but let's remember what she said: "my life is a postcript to my novels -- and I mean it" (or words to that effect). She also said that she was a completely integrated person. If, as it appears, she faked reality when it came to her husband, broke with people for petty reasons, and was cruel that tends to undercut Objectivism on her terms.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-10619795980650877532010-02-14T00:28:45.562-05:002010-02-14T00:28:45.562-05:00I will take a crack at
"6. Altruism. Rand...I will take a crack at<br /><br />"6. Altruism. Rand's jeremiad against altruism just doesn't "resonate" with most people. For example, in Burns' book there is a mention of Rose Wilder Lane. Lane grew up on the frontier when people just "helped out." She could never understand why all behavior should be motivated by self-interest."<br /><br />I wonder if Lane and most other people understand the difference between altruism and kindness or generosity?<br /><br />For Ayn Rand's elaboration on this issue see p. 27 and 28 of Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A.<br /><br />On p. 28, Ayn Rand states,<br /><br />"The essence of altruism is self-sacrifice. If you do something for another that involves harm to yourself, that is altruism. But voluntarily giving something to another who hasn't earned it is not. That's morally neutral. You may or may not have a good reason for doing it. As a principle, nobody would think of forbidding all voluntary giving. Judging what giving is proper depends on the context of the situation-on the relationship of the two persons involved. Moreover, the act of giving is the least important act in life. This is not where one begins a discussion of morality or politics." <br /><br />Rick Wilmes<br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-14172628255670612432010-02-13T16:19:49.811-05:002010-02-13T16:19:49.811-05:00Andrew Joseph: Thanks for taking a "crack&quo...Andrew Joseph: Thanks for taking a "crack" at rebutting Neil Parille's nit-picking. I'm not interested in addressing every little picayune, inconsequential objection someone may have about Rand or the philosophy. Some readers here think it's my job (or Rand's) to make a career of persuading everyone under the sun of the complete totality of Objectivism. Rand herself commented on this phenomenon, about individuals who expected her to answer every contingency and objection and grain of sand until they're convinced, and then they'd concede that she was right and all would be copacetic. Where's the trade? I see none in it for me.<br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-24475886885183038532010-02-13T14:31:46.175-05:002010-02-13T14:31:46.175-05:00I'll take a crack at it, though I don't co...I'll take a crack at it, though I don't consider myself to be an expert on the subject... <br /><br />1. "Rand is the greatest thinker since Aristotle." <br />Can we not take this with a grain of salt? I don't accept this is as a valid criticism of objectivism at all. Some people think Jimi Hendrix is the greatest guitar play of all time. Even if this were true, how would one "prove" it? Further, in all of my objectivist reading, I've yet to encounter the phrase, "Rand is the greatest thinker since Aristotle." Perhaps I'm wrong there. <br /><br />2. "Rand is a great novelist and Atlas Shrugged is the greatest work of fiction ever." <br />Again, you're using things people may or may not have said *about* objectivism as a critique of objectivism. This does not constitute a critique of anything but certain individuals, not the philosophy of objectivism. <br /><br />3. "Rand's style."<br />Another non-critique-of-objectivism critique. Do you not like her choice of clothing either? What does it matter?<br /><br />4. "Rand's life." <br />I'm not concerned with Rand's life, I'm concerned with my own. Countless brilliant minds have lived eccentric, dramatic lives. This does nothing to demean their work. I've heard Chevy Chase is an arrogant bastard. I still think Caddyshack is a funny movie. End of story. <br /><br />5. "Rand's movement."<br />This too is not a critique of objectivism, but your opinion concerning a handful of individuals. <br /><br />6. "Altruism."<br />Self sacrifice is not good. Rand's view of altruism doesn't "resonate" with most people because those people have a confused view of her ideas. "I can't believe she was totally against charity and helping people!" Wrong. She was against the morality of self sacrifice, forced self sacrifice in particular. <br />Here's a decent explanation: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--2129-brotherskeeper.aspxAndrew Josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-66806627009004984652010-02-13T08:45:14.832-05:002010-02-13T08:45:14.832-05:00Anonymous: Thanks for your reference to Ayn Rand A...Anonymous: Thanks for your reference to Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A p. 123. That and the obvious scope of Rand's writing prove that she indeed had read her philosophical antipodes.<br /><br />Neil: I can't counter any of your latest objections without writing a book in rebuttal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-33423019268706939492010-02-13T08:14:26.236-05:002010-02-13T08:14:26.236-05:00Although I'm a critic of Objectivism, I'm ...Although I'm a critic of Objectivism, I'm the first to admit that much criticism of Rand is unfair. The Cathy Young piece if quite poor. For whatever reason people often find it difficult to fairly discuss ideas with which they agree. Most Christians shake their heads when they read Objectivist critiques of their views, I imagine.<br /><br />Here are a few reasons why I think Objectivism is an easy target, so to speak.<br /><br />1. Rand is the greatest thinker since Aristotle. While I admit that she is worth reading and even important, some of the claims about her genius and originality are overstated.<br /><br />2. Rand is a great novelist and Atlas Shrugged is the greatest work of fiction ever. Like many people I enjoy The Fountainhead but think AS brought out some of her worst tendencies, such as using characters as a soap box. When I compare Rand and Rudyard Kipling I have to say there is no comparison.<br /><br />3. Rand's style. It strikes me as hectoring in the extreme and does to many others as well. Of course that doesn't mean someone should call her a "fascist" or "totalitarian."<br /><br />4. Rand's life. Unless Burns and Heller got it completely wrong, Rand had a cruel and eccentric side and encouraged what, with some exaggeration, might be called a "cult." Daniels might not know the controversy about Rand's character, but isn't he entitled to rely on book(s) written by people who (unlike the Brandens) were not insiders who split with Rand? <br /><br />5. Rand's movement. The denunciations of fellow advocates (Peikoff's attack on Gotthelf's 2000 book Ayn Rand for example), the splits, Harry Binswanger's loyalty oath, the rewriting of Rand's journals and other material (first revealed by Burns) to conform to Rand's reports about herself, etc. make Objectivism look a little eccentric.<br /><br />6. Altruism. Rand's jeremiad against altruism just doesn't "resonate" with most people. For example, in Burns' book there is a mention of Rose Wilder Lane. Lane grew up on the frontier when people just "helped out." She could never understand why all behavior should be motivated by self-interest. <br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-40064890159045551602010-02-13T00:15:57.084-05:002010-02-13T00:15:57.084-05:00"Is this any different from Rand, who denounc..."Is this any different from Rand, who denounced any number of people (Kant, Hume, Russell, etc.) without much evidence that she studied or understood them?"<br /><br />From Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A p. 123.<br /><br />Question: Abraham Maslow claims to have found that self-actualizing men-the kind of men you like-were assisted by an altruistic attitude. Could you comment?<br /><br />Ayn Rand: I've written countless words on altruism. I've read such experts on it as Plato, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, and I've opposed their arguments. I am not interested in Maslow's "arguments", though I know them. He is so much on the fringe-so primitive and irrelevant- that they're nothing more than arbitrary pronouncements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-88895670820170335522010-02-12T07:04:35.570-05:002010-02-12T07:04:35.570-05:00Park: As Felix Leiter said to Bond in “Diamonds ar...Park: As Felix Leiter said to Bond in “Diamonds are Forever”: Nothing propinks like propinquity. Or, as Goldfinger observed to him: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.<br /><br />Rand has been the object of hits and having cultural establishment contracts put out on her so often, it’s indicative of the fear Daniels, Young and numerous others have had of her, coupled with unadulterated malicious spite, with a dash of envy thrown in. In part, it’s what someone referred to as a cottage industry. What other “conservative” novel is still going strong after half a century? Is Blackford Oakes of William F. Buckley’s “Saving the Queen” remembered by anyone today? When the government-mandated housing bubble burst in 2008, wasn’t it non-Objectivist observers who remarked, “Hey, didn’t that Rand writer predict something like this in that novel of hers?” No matter how much conservatives and libertarians hate Rand, her work and her philosophy stick in their minds over the course of decades. It’s almost a neurosis. And the explanation for it is that they know she’s right, but they have nothing to offer as an alternative. So, off with her head. <br /><br />They fear Rand’s ascendancy because it threatens to displace their worn-out assurances that God, or tradition, or just picking things out of the air will suffice as a politics. They don’t want people to take her seriously. They bear her malice because her philosophy won’t admit the eclecticism of their alleged moral foundation, which includes concessions to altruism and collectivism and subjectivism. And they envy her for her cultural staying power. J.D. Salinger, Philip Roth, or any other establishment novelist you care to name has never been the subject of such vitriolic attacks by them as has been Rand. <br /><br />The GOP is similarly motivated. They’re bankrupt. Notice how long it’s taken them to realize that the Tea Party movement is real, and to take steps to claim it as their own. Of course they’ll criticize libertarians and “non-traditional” Republicans, because they (wrongly) perceive in them the same threat to their underlying moral philosophy, which they share with actual rivals, the Democrats. But, they let their “button men” -- the intellectuals and pundits -- do the dirty work of preparing the ground for such attacks. <br /><br />Yes, you could call the "revival" of Rand akin to a beachhead, something like an intellectual D-Day landing. Battles have yet to be fought. And Objectivist writers and thinkers would do well to adopt General Patton's battle strategy (from the movie, the cleaned-up version): Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that "we are holding our position." We're not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-16669154599275137752010-02-12T01:13:57.694-05:002010-02-12T01:13:57.694-05:00Mr. Cline,
Re: the increasing number of hit pieces...Mr. Cline,<br />Re: the increasing number of hit pieces on AR; Is this an indication that O'ists are encroaching upon what used to be the popular purview of conservatives/the GOP, namely garnering support from people who share a "Garnet Kendrick" sort of character? Or is it merely the conservative institution playing wack-a-mole with any potential rival who manages to get a few minutes on Fox News? After all, the GOP and their water-carriers sometimes (i.e. beginning of election season) spend more time criticizing libertarians and non-traditional Republicans than their actual election opponents. <br />So, is this trend that you point out a recognition by the "conservative elite" that O'ism is gaining a beachhead into their popular support, or is it just spiteful sparring with an also-ran?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02934952144259431516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-53834282521739563492010-02-11T20:29:44.788-05:002010-02-11T20:29:44.788-05:00Neil: Rand “denounced” Kant, Hume, Russell, et al...Neil: Rand “denounced” Kant, Hume, Russell, et al. because they are big game, visible to the whole thinking, reading culture. And she didn’t so much “denounce” them as criticize them for contributing to the end of the Enlightenment and the discarding of reason. If one is reading Rand’s nonfiction essays, one would come to them with a knowledge of Kant, Hume and Russell. It wasn’t her task to offer refresher courses in those philosophers. And because she could discuss them and refute their tenets, that’s certainly evidence that she’d read them. <br /><br />But, who were X, Y, and Z? As I noted in my commentary, one must be a student of Russian or German literature to grasp the relevance (or irrelevance) of Daniels’ reference to them. And, I think it says something about Daniels’ intellectual literacy that he would “name drop” those three Russian journalists/novelists and the two German ones, exhibiting some familiarity with them, but have little or no familiarity with Rand, who is a major American thinker and writer. Kant, Hume and Russell had demonstrable influences on Western culture and the direction it is taking. But X, Y and Z? Perhaps they indeed influenced Russian culture. I don’t know. Daniels offers no proof of it or why Rand is somehow like them. He just makes the assertion and moves on to the next snicker. <br /><br />As for the errors and hearsay in the Burns and Heller biographies, I’ve discussed these before and won’t wade back into that subject again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-30124901430512570122010-02-11T19:53:10.655-05:002010-02-11T19:53:10.655-05:00Ed,
You write:
___
Daniels asserts that Rand’s ...Ed,<br /><br />You write:<br /><br />___<br /><br />Daniels asserts that Rand’s literary and philosophical importance is in the minor Russian “tradition” of Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, and Chernyshevsky, without offering any evidence of those writers’ positions or even explaining who they were. This is inexcusable name-dropping. <br /><br />____<br /><br />Is this any different from Rand, who denounced any number of people (Kant, Hume, Russell, etc.) without much evidence that she studied or understood them?<br /><br />And just what are the mistakes in the Heller and Burns books?<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-11427778518161439292010-02-11T03:43:57.302-05:002010-02-11T03:43:57.302-05:00Correction: My comment should have read: 'para...Correction: My comment should have read: 'paraphrasing Roxane in Rostand's Cyrano, "Why so great a No?" '<br /><br />Roxanne A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-87024781334097441652010-02-11T02:52:05.328-05:002010-02-11T02:52:05.328-05:00Thank you, Ed, and Peter M., for reading all the a...Thank you, Ed, and Peter M., for reading all the attacks on Ayn Rand and giving a coherent, enlightened over-view of the phenomenon. It helps greatly to put them in some perspective. <br /><br />I think you summed it up well, Ed, in your comment on the Daniels critique, paraphrasing Rostand's Cyrano, why so great a "No"? It corroborates Peter M.'s insight that the movtivation is fear; fear of Rand's ideas, fear of the response people have to her ideas.<br /><br />What is disturbing is someone of Daniel's ability, who has first-hand insights into psychology, can be so intellectually dishonest in his attack on Rand. His obscure name-dropping, psychologizing of Rand offered as insight, insults offered as criticism, refusal to discuss philosophical ideas, etc., in evaluating Rand and Objectivism undercuts all his other work. It's a tragedy and a loss that a man of ability would be so emotional and subjective in evaluating Ayn Rand.<br /><br />Roxanne A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com