tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post9070171631516201062..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The Oblique Smearing of Ayn RandUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1414071867306580172010-01-04T14:47:18.604-05:002010-01-04T14:47:18.604-05:00Having read both terrible hatchet jobs I can easil...Having read both terrible hatchet jobs I can easily rebut Neil Parile's inane comments. The published Rand journals are accurate, any changes are minor grammatical ones. Both Burns<br />and Heller rely way too much on the Brandens' and Rothbard's<br />nonsense which has been thoroughly<br />discredited by James Valliant.In<br />fact both authors even caution against acceptance of the Brandens<br />and reference Valliant's great book<br />despite their uncritical acceptance<br />of the discredited Brandenite agit-prop. I went on Heller's facebook page to point out the many problems with her work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-34553387207963548212009-11-09T15:35:40.951-05:002009-11-09T15:35:40.951-05:00Here's an interesting article contrasting Obj....Here's an interesting article contrasting Obj. and Lib. written by Diana Hseih.<br /><br />http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/11/libertarian-vs-objectivist-thinking.shtmljmchughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687641643148628056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-7620873323857621952009-11-04T22:26:29.755-05:002009-11-04T22:26:29.755-05:00If Objectivists were consistent, they would define...If Objectivists were consistent, they would define capitalism, reason, individualism, freedom, etc. to include certain philosophical underpinnings. The would then say, "we aren't capitalists and individualists because these people reject the only philosophy that can support such things."Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-87538786235346512002009-11-04T21:44:33.913-05:002009-11-04T21:44:33.913-05:00Will Objectivists ever get tired of trying to deny...Will Objectivists ever get tired of trying to deny that they are libertarians?<br /><br />Yes, Rand denied she was a libertarian. Hayek also denied he was a conservative. So what? Both of them were wrong. Rand's own writings on libertarianism and libertarian ideas reveal how little she knew about them. This isn't really a criticism of her--the libertarian movement was miniscule when she called them "hippies of the right," and no doubt her view was skewed by overexposure to Rothbard.<br /><br />Today's Objectivists have no excuse for such ignorance. The word "libertarian" means someone who supports laissez-faire capitalism. That's all. The fact that Objectivists disagree with non-Objectivist libertarians about many things does not make them any less libertarian. Objectivists disagree with other non-Objectivist atheists about many things, but Objectivists are still atheists. Objectivists disagree with other non-Objectivist humans about many things, but Objectivists are still humans.<br /><br />When Objectivists like Rand, Schwartz, Binswanger, and now Ed Cline, try to define the term libertarian to include particular philosophical underpinnings (including the idea that all libertarians must believe that ethics is irrelevant to politics), they are using the term in a way that nobody else does.<br /><br />Again, to be a "libertarian" means you support laissez-faire capitalism--no more, no less.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-47209105589462589872009-10-28T15:05:41.471-04:002009-10-28T15:05:41.471-04:00All of the reviews I've read to date (The Econ...All of the reviews I've read to date (The Economist, The New Republic, Liberty, Barnes and Nobel, and many others) make an error I've not yet seen discussed (though Ed touches on it). All of them talk very little about the book and spend the overwhelming majority of the space touting their own views, and criticizing Rand.<br /><br />I.e. none of them is actually a review of the book in question, which is necessarily - if done correctly - about the author's views of Rand and her work, and not their own.Jeffrey Perrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841019772535869442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-40460649343718477442009-10-27T11:27:37.149-04:002009-10-27T11:27:37.149-04:00Ed, Now that it comes on good authority I will def...Ed, Now that it comes on good authority I will definitely read the "Memoirs". Thank you.pomponazzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15650762047420820104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-50306463929194833352009-10-26T09:10:56.456-04:002009-10-26T09:10:56.456-04:00Ed,
A couple additional points:
1. Just who are ...Ed,<br /><br />A couple additional points:<br /><br />1. Just who are the libertarians you are talking about? Many I know have a natural rights approach similar to Rand's. Some names and citations here would help.<br /><br />2. I think it is important to read the book before ripping into Cox. Cox apparently believes his contentions are supported by the new research in the Heller book. Unless you are familiar with that research and are contesting it, the prudent course it to wait. <br /><br />For example, Heller (I gather) believes Rand lied about her past. If that's true, then Cox's claim that Rand was not up-front on those who influenced her becomes more likely. She may also have more specific info on that particular topic.<br /><br />-NeilNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-57785493486311622942009-10-26T08:11:56.815-04:002009-10-26T08:11:56.815-04:00Ed-Thanks for responding. However, your response a...Ed-Thanks for responding. However, your response addresses the least important point of my post, that I believe you ought to have read Ms. Heller's book.<br /><br />The most important point is that Cox's review, while at times quite tough on Miss Rand,is not intended to "excoriate" her. It is filled with lavish and not pro-forma praise. <br /><br />Cox's article includes a number of interesting points that one would not know were there in reading your review of the review.<br /><br />"Interesting" doesn't necessarily mean correct, and one would welcome a fuller response from you or anyone else to the actual content of the article.jmchughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687641643148628056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-24110174599206896272009-10-26T06:03:37.030-04:002009-10-26T06:03:37.030-04:00Ed,
I have a question about this statement:
___
...Ed,<br /><br />I have a question about this statement:<br /><br />___<br /><br />She acknowledged John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, and other pro-reason thinkers from the past. <br />___<br /><br />I can't think of where Rand ever said she learned anything from Aquinas and Locke. She thought them important, but not on her intellectual development.<br /><br />You mention the Journals and Letters but Burns, after comparing the published Journals with the originals, says they are not reliable.<br /><br />Incidentally, it appears that Burns and Heller have confirmed most of the controversial claims in Barbara Branden's biography, including those about Frank's drinking. I'm wondering if you still support Jim Valliant's book.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-59760990693935509482009-10-26T04:24:31.634-04:002009-10-26T04:24:31.634-04:00Pomponazzi: Nock was actually a very good essayist...Pomponazzi: Nock was actually a very good essayist, so I would encourage you to read his "Memoirs." He makes many valid points about the pitfalls of democracy (as opposed to a republican form of government), chiefly how a democratic one is naturally corrupting. What you will experience after a while is a sense of ennui from his pessimism, which is most discouraging!<br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-32626540985028280552009-10-26T01:50:06.496-04:002009-10-26T01:50:06.496-04:00Ed, thanks for the answer. I have an old copy of N...Ed, thanks for the answer. I have an old copy of Nock's, "Memoirs of a superfluous man". Your writings discussing him has dissuaded me from perusing it.pomponazzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15650762047420820104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-734221006710737232009-10-25T21:13:20.397-04:002009-10-25T21:13:20.397-04:00Pomponazzi: The purpose of the Albert Jay Nock quo...Pomponazzi: The purpose of the Albert Jay Nock quotation was two-fold: first, it (and a preceding paragraph from Nock's essay) was that one of his "Remnant" individuals wouldn't be able to remember where he got his ideas for liberty; second, Cox was claiming or insinuating that Rand denied any intellectual influence but Aristotle's, having forgotten what else she'd read in past political philosophy writings by other thinkers, and he could have used the Nock quotation to underscore that (invalid) assertion. Rand, as I point out in the piece, certainly acknowledged the influence of many thinkers. Cox after all brought up the subject of Nock. <br /><br />Joseph: My focus was on the expected libertarian reaction to the Heller and Burns biographies, moved by a certainty of how those books would be received by a "major" libertarian writer. I will read both books sooner or later, but enough about them has been revealed in so many mainstream reviews that I have been given a general idea of what they are about and what they say about Rand. I have read the libertarian reviews, and that's what counted in this round. It's highly doubtful that I'll need to retract anything I said about Cox<br />because his focus was not on Heller's book, but on how best to excoriate Rand through his review of Heller's book -- which, by the way, is how most mainstream reviews have behaved. Neither camp can even be original in their mode of malice. <br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-51279252203031377182009-10-25T16:42:52.859-04:002009-10-25T16:42:52.859-04:00I have not read Cox's review, and I too have r...I have not read Cox's review, and I too have read only 1 chapter of the book. <br /><br />I was particularly interested in your take on Cox's take on Galt's Speech in the novel. My daughter and I had this conversation a year ago, after she had read the novel the first time, and I had re-read it twice since summer as an adult. (My first readings were as a high schooler). <br /><br />We both agreed that it was certainly an usual feature for a novel, and also that most of what was explicated in the speech was also indicated in the action of the novel. However, none of Rand's heroes talk like characters do in most novels, either. And we thought that the speech works in the novel, although some readers will undoubtedly skip it and still come away with a good read but a lesser understanding of why the characters did what they did.<br /><br />We we at a loss for what to call this as neither of us have been much interested in literary criticism. To contrast our ideas from those of people like Stephen King--who called Rand's characters "cardboard"--we ended up talking about them as archetypes--though not in the same vein as that used in psychobabble. <br /><br />But Rand's writing clearly makes the reader care about the characters (or hate them as the case may be--how can one not hate Wesley Mouch) and yet they are not quite like anyone that we've ever met, rather they are people one wishes one could meet. <br /><br />To cut to the chase, we both thought the speech not only worked in the novel, but also that the reader who carefully reads the speech will come away with a better understanding of the action in the novel than he would if he didn't read it. <br /><br />So, if two interested non-Objectivists could get it, surely Cox could have as well.Elisheva Hannah Levinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16061377724926154037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-58103773341745356282009-10-25T14:52:13.911-04:002009-10-25T14:52:13.911-04:00Great article. I didn't understand the meaning...Great article. I didn't understand the meaning of the Knock quote though. <br /><br />This is the Barbara Branden syndrome: Eulogise Ayn Rand in a syrupy tone, which serves as the groundwork for impugning her character. This way she retains her "Objectivity," and vents her spleen too.pomponazzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15650762047420820104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-55866605962997113232009-10-25T12:05:53.272-04:002009-10-25T12:05:53.272-04:00I think Ed Cline's review would have been much...I think Ed Cline's review would have been much better if he had read Heller's biography before writing his review of the review. T<br /><br />But that's a less important point. I can't agree, after reading Stephen Cox's article, that he is trying to trash Ayn Rand. The article is filled with extraordinary praise for Miss Rand. To put it on the level of Whitaker Chambers' smear is a serious misreading of the article.<br /><br />True, Cox includes some tough criticism of Ayn Rand and her writing. And one can argue with him on certain of his points. (I certainly do!) But Cline chose not to address the most salient and interesting points of the article-such as Cox's comments on the importance of empathy. <br /><br />I'm not a fan of Liberty Magazine, not because it criticizes Rand, but because it often does so in a gossipy manner.<br /><br />But this article is not one of those types. I think it's perfectly fine to take issue with the article, but one should do so without misrepresenting it,and, also by addressing the most important points contained therein.jmchughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687641643148628056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-87742209425548133062009-10-25T11:16:58.312-04:002009-10-25T11:16:58.312-04:00"a cosmology absent an inexplicable “first ca..."a cosmology absent an inexplicable “first cause.”" Well put, Ed. Unique, colorful, apt. I think that without your original style of writing I would not be able to read about such ugliness. What is being done to this icon is horrific. Still, it keeps her in the news which is good for any honest seeker of the truth.Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03825599895116548191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-86875022852142439282009-10-25T09:38:47.503-04:002009-10-25T09:38:47.503-04:00Great post. What kills me about libertarians is th...Great post. What kills me about libertarians is their concrete bound level of thinking. They are unable to grasp that the only way to protect men from initiatory force is to put retaliatory force under objective control and that's the purpose of a proper government.<br />Libertarianism is what happens when a pragmatist decides he likes freedom.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-7749595359807867962009-10-25T07:31:43.676-04:002009-10-25T07:31:43.676-04:00It is interesting that the majority of reviews are...It is interesting that the majority of reviews are of Heller's book, which, as I remark in the piece here, provides a bigger salad bar (or smorgasbord) of details about Rand than does the Jennifer Burns book. <br /><br />I might do a follow-up piece on these "mainstream" reviews, as well. The New Republic, for example, ran a 17-page review of both books (at least it came to 17 pages printed out), while Barnes & Noble has run a very long piece, too. Virtually every one of these mainstream reviews commits the same offenses that Cox committed in Liberty magazine.<br /><br />Ed<br /><br /><br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-15937893074824340702009-10-24T22:04:08.779-04:002009-10-24T22:04:08.779-04:00Tom: Thanks. About Rand's alleged totalitarian...Tom: Thanks. About Rand's alleged totalitarian streak, Heller apparently discusses that subject, too, which was dessert for Cox. I expect to hear from him or some of his libertarian ilk, once my piece is discovered. Yes, Rand's followers and students had to freedom to walk away, if her alleged intolerance for disagreement with her was true. I could have written a piece three times the length of what I finallly concluded, but there would have been no point to it.<br />EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-14732684566365753222009-10-24T20:54:55.561-04:002009-10-24T20:54:55.561-04:00This is a great article. I am saddened at the fact...This is a great article. I am saddened at the fact that these second handers are using the resurgence of Atlas Shrugged to slander Rand while so many new readers are just discovering her ideas.<br /><br />I read a review by Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina, where I live) of all people where he made the overall conclusion that Rand was too extreme and her philosophy was inherently flawed because she was a totalitarian with her students and followers. I thought Sanford was a smart man, but apparently he can't grasp the concept that the students or followers had the freedom to walk out at any moment if they disagreed with the way things were being run, something none of us US citizens have when it comes to our totalitarian government.<br /><br />Anyway, good work. Great article.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06992382782551700930noreply@blogger.com