> The Brits have His Royal Highness. I coined Her Royal Whoreness for Sciabarra. From now on I think we should *all* refer to Leonard as His Royal Heirness.

Only if we can call you His Royal Ad HomiNem Nuts

...see that's a FIVE way wordplay on your tendency to ad hominem, nem for new enlightenment man, numb nuts...and...and...oh never mind

How about some ACTUAL NUMBERS?

If anyone has a better long distance phone call package than I do and is willing to make a half hour or less of phone calls, here in one place is (i) the "Ingram method" to find how many copies a book has sold in the current year and (ii) the ISBN's for, not every, but "benchmark" Rand-related books:

(i)
1. To obtain the ISBN number of [a book] go to Amazon.com...
2. Call 615-213-6803, enter ISBN and you will be told: Total sales this year / Total sales last year
3. To calculate the total number of books sold -everywhere-, experts multiply the Ingram numbers by 6 (low) to 10 (high).

(ii)
(* multiple formats w diff. isbns)

book amazon rank isbn
atlas shrugged 2,529 0452011876*
vos 5,514 0451163931
anthem 4,836 0451191137
cui 10,746 0451147952
itoe 44,629 0452010306
passion 453,094 038524388X
parc 279,923 1930754671
rradical 692,072 0271014415
walkercult 211,263 0812693906
opar 32,501 0452011019
anthessays 2,738,368 0739110306

iii) Note that Atlas has multiple editions, therefore multiple ISBNs so this method won't give total sales...which ARI already reports are nearly half a million a year anyway. Note also that Amazon rank only indicates how the book compares to others sold by them...which is probably disproportionately larger there for books one doesn't find in the major book chains.

Bingo, Dan! The Brits have His Royal Highness. I coined Her Royal Whoreness for Sciabarra. From now on I think we should *all* refer to Leonard as His Royal Heirness.

Linz

Dan said... "Some folks (like Campbell or Bidinotto) want the bring up the issue of Peikoff being "intellectual heir" because they want to attack the straw man that Peikoff is the only one who can speak on Objectivism intelligibly, or that he owns the philosophy, or that his followers blindly follow him because of his heir-ness. As if any of that stuff is true."

Dan, does that mean that you don't refer to Dr. Peikoff by his proper title as "His Holiness the Guiding Light, Supreme Authority, and All-Around Pope of Objectivism"?

Shame on you.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Rand's endorsement of Peikoff is very significant if you trust Rand's judgment (which I do).  However, Peikoff's collection of books and lectures is a much more significant endorsement.  He's forgotten more about technical philosophy than most of us will ever know.  He is truly an expert in the field.

Some folks (like Campbell or Bidinotto) want the bring up the issue of Peikoff being "intellectual heir" because they want  to attack the straw man that Peikoff is the only one who can speak on Objectivism intelligibly, or that he owns the philosophy, or that his followers blindly follow him because of his heir-ness.  As if any of that stuff is true.

--Dan Edge

And even if Peikoff were a totally inept boob, it wouldn't make Branden any more of an expert.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

On the "Peikoff in His Own Words" DVD, Peikoff tells us that she called him his intellectual heir. Since this was a private endorsement, it's not worth much if you think Peikoff dishonest from to get go. I don't think Peikoff is a liar, and based on OPAR and the hundreds of hours of brilliant Peikoff lectures I've heard, he has earned the designation. Whether or not "intellectual heir" is useful or clear terminology is a legitimate matter of debate, and I'm inclined to agree with Chris C. Though Peikoff does deserve some kind of recognition as the person who understands Objectivism better than anyone else.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

... by "blind fury."

James,

You wrote, “Rand was careful about endorsements after Branden.”

Yes, she was. She didn’t make any more.

Gee, whiz, I completely respect Chris's (whole) position, too.

Chris,

You wrote, “Best as I can tell, it's just some folks' way of paying high respect to Peikoff, but I don't see it having much literal meaning.”

I agree that may be what some folks mean and I agree with it having not much meaning. But what do you suppose Peikoff means when he uses it? What purpose would he have for using it?

“Personally, I wouldn't apply the term, to Peikoff of anyone else.”

I agree and have much respect for you for your taking this position.

Some folks have this bug up their ass about the "intellectual heir" designation. Nobody is Rand's intellectual heir in the literal sense of speaking for her philosophy after her death. Best as I can tell, it's just some folks' way of paying high respect to Peikoff, but I don't see it having much literal meaning. I do recall that Rand did say someplace what she meant by the phrase when she did use it (in connection with Branden; I don't know of her using it in connection with Peikoff), but gave a pretty specific and qualified meaning to it, as I recall.

Any "authority" anyone has as a scholar of Objectivism is determined objectively, and any figurative "intellectual heir" designation doesn't change that. It privileges no one. Personally, I wouldn't apply the term, to Peikoff of anyone else. Doesn't mean much to me.

For the zillionth time, yeah, Rand was careful about endorsements after Branden. If anything, this shows how much she really meant that retraction of her previous praise of NB. (Who except Peikoff did she even name an "Objectivist philosopher" in public in the last years of her life?)

In fact, Rand made Peikoff the heir to her intellectual (and other) property.

(White hot rage, here, Linz.)

Diana,

The NB allusion was in parentheses because he really was not the subject I wanted to discuss. I wanted to discuss the claim by Peikoff of “intellectual heir” status. I brought up NB only as response to Chris’ “being that he's [Peikoff] the person alive today who was closest to Rand.” It was tongue-in-cheek…there is someone alive today who got the closestest to her.

Chris,

I have it here. It was November 21, 1980. Page 666.

It begins, “To Whom It May Concern: I am happy to comply with Dr. Peikoff’s request for a reference.” It appears to be a letter of reference for a teaching job.

I will now make a partial retraction of my objection to your statement, “…her personal endorsement as the best exponent of Objectivism.” The letter is complimentary of his teaching skills and includes this sentence: “I am often asked for an endorsement by aspiring teachers of my philosophy. But I know of no philosopher who is Dr. Peikoff’s equal on this subject.” (Again with the qualifying, ‘that I know of.’)

Still, this falls short of “intellectual heir.” Adding up lots of these doesn’t get us any closer, either. And she wrote this to help him get a job. I have letters of reference that read as though I can walk on water. She didn’t intend this for her readers and didn’t print anything even close to this glowing assessment (that I know of.)

Jon, on the one hand, you wish to make inferences about NB that squarely contradict AR's very explicit public statements about him. On the other hand, you refuse to make the obvious inferences about her assessment of LP.

Gee, why would you do that?

In any case, LP's deep understanding of Objectivism is AMPLY demonstrated by OPAR -- as well as his many lecture courses and other talks. (Have you even heard them? I bet not.) In contrast, NB has shown his grasp of Objectivism to be disturbingly superficial in his "Benefits and Hazards" article and elsewhere. Really though, his understanding isn't merely superficial. He misrepresents and muddles Objectivism in that article so that he can offer dishonest criticisms of it, even while claiming to be such an expert. It's a smear that NB only dared publish after AR's death.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Yes, it's on pages 666-667 of the hardback edition of Letters of Ayn Rand. In an open letter dated November 21, 1980, Rand wrote:

"I am often asked for an endorsement by aspiring teachers of my philosophy, but I know of no philosopher who is Dr. Peikoff's equal on this subject."

Of course, simply calling him "an Objectivist philosopher" was a form of endorsement.

Jon, I'm confident that one or more of the readers here has a copy of the Letters and'll quote the letter soon enough. It was written ca. 1980.

Hi Diana,

You wrote, “That would make him the foremost authority on her philosophy.” No. That would make his course the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism and the only one that she knew of to be fully accurate.

Chris,

You wrote, “…she regarded him as the best exponent of Objectivism next to herself. Whether she made that fully explicit in print, I don't know…”

I don’t know either, that’s why I am asking. I don’t think she did. In the eighties when Peikoff and Co. were pushing the “intellectual heir” line, they used her quote endorsing his course. I assume if they had better, they would use it.

“But I do remember her saying words to this very effect in one of her letters that was published after her death in the Ayn Rand Letters.”

If you or anyone can find it, I would like to see it.

Gee whiz, let's see. How about Ayn Rand's endorsement of Dr. Peikoff's Philosophy of Objectivism course:

"Dr. Peikoff's course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate."

That would make him the foremost authority on her philosophy. Her other actions toward him -- such as trusting him as the executor of her estate, answering questions in his lectures, maintaining a friendship with him until the end of her life, working with him on editing books (PWNI) -- confirm that assessment of him. Unlike NB, Dr. Peikoff was honest enough to openly stuggle with AR for years to genuinely understand her philosophy. And that's why he practiced it in his life, whereas NB flagrantly violated (and still violates) its basic principles.

Also, if AR's endorsement of NB matters -- doesn't her later repudiation of him, not just as a person, but also as a spokesman for Objectivism, matter just a teensy bit too? Doesn't it matter that she realized that her past endorsement of him was a HUGE FREAKING MISTAKE?!? AND SAID SO PUBLICLY?!?

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

“First book” as personal endorsement? No, that’s an endorsement of a book. Just as her endorsement of his course was carefully worded to endorse the course without endorsing him. She even qualified it with something like ‘the most accurate course, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, and until such time as I develop one.’ You have to admit that’s funny. She left open the possibility that a more accurate course existed of which she may not have been aware!

Jon, I'm a bit baffled by your remarks. As Mike already mentioned, she dropped the endorsement and, yes, removed the dedication from subsequent printings of Atlas. Yeah, Branden would be one of the very few people alive today who had very close and extensive personal exposure to and conversation with Rand. How is that supposed to mean anything as to whether Dr. Smith would, in her right mind, consult him, much less consider doing so?

As to the nature of Rand's endorsement of Peikoff: she didn't give him any authority to speak for her after her death, but during her lifetime, by the late 1970s, she regarded him as the best exponent of Objectivism next to herself. Whether she made that fully explicit in print, I don't know, as my copy of Ominous Parallels to which she wrote the forward was lost to flood. But I do remember her saying words to this very effect in one of her letters that was published after her death in the Ayn Rand Letters. (Note to self: I gotta re-add that book to my collection.)

Mike (anyone),

Are there sources for Rand’s “endorsement [of Peikoff] as the best exponent of Objectivism”?

And it wasn't just Peikoff's course -- it was his first book which she called the "first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than" Rand herself. (That's an endorsement of him, btw.) Even as early as the taped autobiographical interviews from the early 60's, Rand was giving high credit to Peikoff for influencing her to write ITOE.

But, Mike, this ground has been covered with Mr. Letendre about hundred times.

Aren’t you forgetting someone else, alive today, who was quite “close” to Rand?

The endorsement of Branden was dropped. Her notes (the ones in PARC) indicate that she believed he was a deeply entrenched rationalist. Even if his rationalism were honest, it would still disqualify him from "expert" statues. Benefits and Hazards disqualifies him as an expert even further.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Chris,

You wrote, “Nevermind the fact that Smith could draw personally on Peikoff in extended personal conversations, being that he's the person alive today who was closest to Rand and given her personal endorsement as the best exponent of Objectivism.”

(Aren’t you forgetting someone else, alive today, who was quite “close” to Rand? Hint: my copy of Atlas Shrugged she dedicated to frank and him.)

“…her personal endorsement as the best exponent of Objectivism.” I recall that she endorsed Peikoff’s course, but not him. I may not be aware of them—do you have sources for her endorsement of him?

Oh, my darling, when will you learn? Your request for evidence to back accusations will be met with the accusation that you are arguing for Rand's "perfection," and therefore exhibit a "cult mentality."

Why should Peikoff disagree if Rand hadn't acted unreasonably?

Then maybe you, Campbell, can do a better job than the Brandens did in explaining to us exactly how Rand was wrong in any one of these breaks.

Adam,

This is the first time that I've heard that Rand made any effort to mend fences with John Hospers.

Supposing that the story is true, all I can say is that sometimes more than one such effort is necessary.

For instance, more than one fence-mending initiative was required before Doug Rasmussen agreed to speak at a TOC event for the first time.  You see, while still a faithful Peikovian, Dr. Kelley had turned down an invitation to contribute a chapter to The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, in a manner signaling his entire disapproval of such a project.  Drs. Den Uyl and Rasmussen were still sore about it over a decade later.

What's more, if Dr. Peikoff had ever attempted to reach out to, say, Tibor Machan, Doug Rasmussen, or Doug Den Uyl, I believe we would have heard about it from them.

There's a parsimonious explanation for the lack of such public tales: Dr. Peikoff is in complete agreement with every excommunication that took place during the NBI era, and during the rest of Ayn Rand's lifetime.

Robert Campbell

"Didn't you know the world's slimmest volume is The Scottish Book of Humour?"

You're fraternizing with the wrong Scots.

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

Isn't it the 'Scottish Book of Getting Your Round In,' written by a chap with small coin-sized bruises on the back of his head?

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

I did not get Brant's joke but nobody seems to get my dry Scottish humour either.

You gotta be kidding. Didn't you know the world's slimmest volume is The Scottish Book of Humour?

Or was it The Scottish Book of Gifts?

(Have to put the smiley on - can't be too careful these days).

I did not get Brant's joke but nobody seems to get my dry Scottish humour either.

Okay, you got me, Brant -- you ARE an uncivilized bastard!

Robert - you write, "By the way, one thing that I've never seen explained is why, if Nathaniel Branden was really the architect of all of the excommunications during the NBI era, Leonard Peikoff didn't strive to rehabilitate any of the presumably nontrivial number of people who were unjustly cast out of the fold."

Hospers reports a phone call - even before the Branden break - that he regards as an attempt, on Rand's part, to "mend fences." There is no reasonable way to claim that Rand, with or without Peikoff's help, did not try to "mend fences" with others - unless you go out and ask.

What joke?

-Brant

Mr. Cathcart,

You can call me Chris, that's okay. Hey, at least it's a greeting. Robert Bidinotto addresses posts he disagrees with by post number.

And my review has been part of the open literature for over 6 years now.

Still, I'm pleased that a participant on this site has now read it.

Well, I didn't imply that I read it all the way through. I didn't. When I saw gratuitous shots at Rand and the "sectarian" mentality she allegedly encouraged, at both beginning and ending of the review, I wasn't particularly motivated to look through much of the rest of it.

The context for my remark about Ayn Rand's sectarian tendencies was Tibor Machan's own comment that she showed no interest in engaging her critics in print.

What's galling about this is that her not engaging her critics in print is taken to be a sign of sectarian tendencies. What's wrong with a more sympathetic characterization, like that offered by Prof. Hospers? (Namely, that she had her way of doing things, and that the professionals had theirs.)

I'm willing to bet that I noticed nearly every fault in the book's editing that Robert Bass noticed...along with a few that he didn't. I mentioned the subpar editing, but instead of devoting the first two pages of my review to it as Bass did, I put the editing issue into a footnote.

First off, blatantly bad editing by itself can be a deal-breaker for many a reader. I did happen to see your footnote, and was amazed to read that you regarded one of Machan's other books, Capitalism and Individualism, was even worse. It's been a long while since I read it (one of the three Machan books I can remember reading back when), but strangely I don't remember it for being notably typo-riddled. (Of course, that was way, way early on, when I probably wasn't quite in the position to spot them as professionals could, and differentiate quality academic-level philosophical writing from the shoddy. We're talking high school days here.)

Dr. Bass's review also deserves to be read in its entirety. I will note, however, that his contention on p. 100 (that Rand can't have been a real egoist) will be taken by the ARI crowd as proof that Bass doesn't understand Objectivism.

He's drawing that conclusion not from Rand, but from the passage from Machan. Now, I do happen to know that Rob has this view that Rand is either an egoist or she's advancing a plausible ethical position, but not both. I've done my darnedest to try to disabuse him of this notion. Still, there, he's addressing Machan's ethically-near-tautological passage.

Frankly, having taken Dr. Bass to task for his claim (in his Spring 2006 JARS article) that Rand made up a straw-man version of altruism, I think they [the ARI crowd] might be on to something there. But isn't it better to get these issues thrashed out in an open forum, as recently happened when you and I responded to Dr. Bass in JARS?

Sure, but why yet another shot at the ARI crowd, insinuating that they wouldn't thrash it out in the open?

There's a passage in the conclusion to my review that bears repeating here:

Very few philosophers have worked with Randian ideas on a daily basis for more than 30 years.

I have to wonder if all those days were well-spent, when Prof. Machan demonstrated in a RoR discussion that he didn't understand Rand's position on so basic a matter as what constitutes an entity's nature.

PS. At the time that I wrote that review, I did not know the full story of Tibor Machan writing the letter to Rand that she deemed rude and insulting. I was going by his comments in older interviews.

Hmmm....

By the way, one thing that I've never seen explained is why, if Nathaniel Branden was really the architect of all of the excommunications during the NBI era, Leonard Peikoff didn't strive to rehabilitate any of the presumably nontrivial number of people who were unjustly cast out of the fold.

What, yet another speculation thrown out there as innuendo? What if Peikoff wasn't aware of the "excommunications," who carried them out and in what fashion, etc.? What, are we supposed to guess at what you think the more obvious reasons are? Wanna entertain alternative possibilities that don't -- predictably -- make Peikoff look bad and/or Branden look better?

I just got back to this thread -- and I am still laughing at Brant's joke!

Robert C. writes:

By the time I criticized Tara Smith for pointed noncitation of canonical Objectivist publications by Nathaniel Branden on the subject of self-esteem, I'd lost count of the times that Mr. Valliant declared that he would not engage in discussion with me.

So preoccupied are you with one little part of Tara Smith's book, out of some preoccupation with pointing out at every turn the nastiness of the "orthodoxy" (your review of Tibor Machan's Ayn Rand indicating the degree of your preoccupation with this ominous subject), that you're willing to, as Fred says in a bout of verbal misbehavior, drag her name through the mud when there are other explanations readily available. Frankly, I sense that you have some kind of sore spot at the fact that Nathaniel Branden isn't getting cited, and not particularly because of the fact that his early writings are canonical. Who would otherwise really give a shit and pay any attention to the fact that Nathaniel Branden wasn't cited, quoted, mentioned, etc. in a book on Ayn Rand's ethics. So it seems to really stick in your craw . . . the question is, why? I mean, there are probably all kinds of other sources on other issues that she might conceivably have cited, but it's this Branden one that really gets to you. It's as if you were going into the book preoccupied with the aim of finding and rooting out instances of partisan, sectarian, dogmatic orthodoxy, and this was about the best you could dig up. It just really gets to you, dunnit, that Machan, the Brandens, Campbell, et al, weren't paid attention to in the most significant academic book on Ayn Rand's philosophy to emerge to date.

Meanwhile, it's that sectarian and dogmatic Peikoff that gets cited a lot. Nevermind the fact that Smith could draw personally on Peikoff in extended personal conversations, being that he's the person alive today who was closest to Rand and given her personal endorsement as the best exponent of Objectivism. Perhaps she should have also gone to Branden to get his input, eh? After all, she may need his input given his contributions to whatever canonical literature related to self-esteem. By all Brandroid accounts, Nathaniel Branden understands Ayn Rand's philosophy better than anyone else alive, and she didn't even consider to consult him!

You know what, Robert, I'll tell you something else: the fact that both the Brandens were so enthusiastic in their praise of Russian Radical now sends up a warning flag all on its own for me. Were I to publish a book on Ayn Rand, in the era after the release of the Branden bios/memoirs, about the last thing I'd seek out or accept is the endorsement of Nathaniel Branden! It's like the kiss of death. Yet you seem to be of the mindset that as much proximity as possible to Nathaniel Branden be the order of the day in Rand scholarship -- that where Branden could be cited, mentioned, etc., it should be done. Why? Why? Why? Why him of all people?

Anyway, back to the matter of pointed noncitation. Is Victor Pross's pointed noncitation of Diana Hsieh less or more obvious than Smith's alleged pointed noncitation?
What verdict would you like to render on Victor Pross's pointed noncitation of Diana's essay, and what do you think should be the practical implementation of that verdict?

Mr. Cathcart,

The Internet is indeed a wonderful thing.

You know, I posted links to PDFs of all of my JARS articles (except my contribution to the Spring 2006 issue, which will be subject to the 6-months-after-hardcopy rule for a little while longer) on this very site, back in April, on a thread on which you were an active participant.

And my review has been part of the open literature for over 6 years now.

Still, I'm pleased that a participant on this site has now read it.

Since my review of Dr. Machan's book is readily available (and Robert Bass's is available for comparison) via the links you provided, may I suggest that those who wish to venture opinions read both reviews in their entirety.  (Both are short.)

The context for my remark about Ayn Rand's sectarian tendencies was Tibor Machan's own comment that she showed no interest in engaging her critics in print.  Since I had previously published in Reason Papers (then edited by Tibor Machan) on a fairly egregious example of non-scholarship directed at Rand, I figured that Rand's own faults in the area of intellectual exchange might be worthy of mention.  Particularly since some Randians, then as now, seemed determined to keep emulating them...

I'm willing to bet that I noticed nearly every fault in the book's editing that Robert Bass noticed...along with a few that he didn't.  I mentioned the subpar editing, but instead of devoting the first two pages of my review to it as Bass did, I put the editing issue into a footnote.  I thought that Dr. Machan raised enough worthwhile issues that his book merited a positive recommendation despite the crappy editing.  (You would think that academic publishers wouldn't tolerate crappy editing, but I can point to some rather well-known psychology books that prove otherwise.)

Dr. Bass's review also deserves to be read in its entirety.  I will note, however, that his contention on p. 100 (that Rand can't have been a real egoist) will be taken by the ARI crowd as proof that Bass doesn't understand Objectivism.  Frankly, having taken Dr. Bass to task for his claim (in his Spring 2006 JARS article) that Rand made up a straw-man version of altruism, I think they might be on to something there.  But isn't it better to get these issues thrashed out in an open forum, as recently happened when you and I responded to Dr. Bass in JARS?

There's a passage in the conclusion to my review that bears repeating here:

Very few philosophers have worked with Randian ideas on a daily basis for more than 30 years.  Machan has had to call on outsized reserves of doggedness, for over most of this period neither mainstream philosophers nor Randian epigones have lent any significant encouragement to efforts like his.

Robert Campbell

PS. At the time that I wrote that review, I did not know the full story of Tibor Machan writing the letter to Rand that she deemed rude and insulting.  I was going by his comments in older interviews.  By the way, one thing that I've never seen explained is why, if Nathaniel Branden was really the architect of all of the excommunications during the NBI era, Leonard Peikoff didn't strive to rehabilitate any of the presumably nontrivial number of people who were unjustly cast out of the fold.

I think you'll find everything here

The thread was begun by Tim Sturm, which I guess is why you couldn't find it. There is another one dealing with this, but I can't remember what it was at the moment.

Campbell objects to my "verbal behavior".

I hope Riggenpiggen won't mind if I borrow one of his lines: Campbell is so cute when he gets all puffed up with outrage at someone else's...umm...verbal behavior.

This from a guy who specializes in character assassination, who has no compunctions whatever to drag someone's name through the mud on the flimsiest of evidence - or even no evidence at all. Often his arbitrary speculations are sufficient.

This one objects to my...verbal behavior.

Plagiarizing Diana: "Blech".

Mr. Perigo,

I couldn't find your presentation of evidence concerning Joe Rowlands' alleged fraud and deceit, either through the search function on this site, or through a search of your blog entries.

Would you mind providing a link?

Robert Campbell

Mr. Cathcart,

You've said:

I haven't seen Valliant hurling insults. I have, however, on a recent occasion, seen you accuse Valliant of hurling insults along with Fred Weiss in a thread that only Fred Weiss had been participating in. Which only leaves me wondering where you're getting these ideas.

Could you perhaps point to an especially memorable instance here, or on RoR, or the old SOLOHQ, where Jim Valliant initiated insults in the place of argument?

Citing Mr. Valliant for insulting Neil Parille here at SOLOPassion was my error.

Mr. Weiss insulted Mr. Parille here--and quoted Mr. Valliant in his first blast at Mr. Parille.

For Mr. Valliant's insults directed at Mr. Parille, you'll have to go to Mr. Parille's blog and read Mr. Valliant's contributions to the comment threads.

But, frankly, given your casual acceptance of Mr. Weiss's verbal behavior, I wonder whether you will find anything that Mr. Valliant has ever said to anyone to be insulting.

About the extent of his "insults" directed towards you, that I've seen, is to say pretty matter-of-factly that he doesn't think discussion with you would be fruitful because he thought you played too fast and loose with the facts. I think that statements to this effect occurred on a number of occasions, perhaps one of them in connection with your riding the "plagiarism" issue in pretty eye-opening fashion a couple weeks back -- going so far as to indict Tara Smith, of all people, on weak evidence at best.

By the time I criticized Tara Smith for pointed noncitation of canonical Objectivist publications by Nathaniel Branden on the subject of self-esteem, I'd lost count of the times that Mr. Valliant declared that he would not engage in discussion with me.

So you may need to go a little farther back.  My history with Mr. Valliant is a bit more than a year old by this point.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-6260

(and up and down from that point. This is a thread on SOLOPassion which you participated--but it was 4 months ago, and you gave little indication of taking any of it seriously at the time)

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0672.shtml#0

(This is a thread on SOLOHQ that I initiated last October.  Note Mr. Fahy's responses, as well as Mr. Valliant's.)

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Campbell/Ayn_Rand_Jealous.shtml

(This is my essay on Rand and jealousy from last November.)

Frankly, if I were accustomed to proclaiming that I would not discuss anything with anyone I suspected of playing fast and loose with the facts, I'd have issued such a proclamation as soon as Mr. Valliant insisted that Ayn Rand's notorious slam at Bertrand Russell in ITOE could be, well, anything but an argument from intimidation.

And that seems like eons ago now.

Robert Campbell

All this huffing and puffing is from the same bunch who once claimed they had "better things to do" than waste their time discussing SOLO. Heh. I'm sure it's rationalized as "fighting for justice" or something equally delusional, as it's important to feign productivity in such cases.

Overall, this proselytizing of theirs is actually good, as the truly productive people can move the marketplace forward while they spin in circles and stay out of the way.

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

... had me fooled, for about 5 seconds. Just as my hackles started to rise, the penny dropped, & I laughed my ass off.

Well, I got Brant's joke -- and I thought it was pretty funny. (Just imagine... Barbara Branden dumpster diving for PARC since she refuses to purchase such a pack of lies...)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

I agree, Kenny, that my attempt at humor didn't work. I don't agree that humor doesn't have a place on SOLO P.

I tried to make a subtle point using a crude construct and it just came off as crude, even as an attack on James and his book, which wasn't my intent. Sometimes inertia takes you places you don't want to go. I remember driving an 18-wheeler in Phoenix, AZ at a grossed out weight of nearly 40 tons and inadvertently overheated my brakes. I came to a red light and I had hardly any brakes to speak of and was half way into the intersection before I stopped. Fortunately there were no other vehicles (or police) in sight, but I could have easily killed somebody or even more than one somebody. Because the way the intersection was constructed I had no way of knowing there wouldn't be an accident until I had come to a stop.

--Brant

I don't think that the Mises Institute publishes Reason Papers. MI just hosts RP's web site -- and that just happened recently, if memory serves.

I'm not much of a fan of MI, not just for their anti-Misean committment to anarchism, but also due to the consistently shoddy quality of the lectures in the first half of their "Home Study Course in Austrian Ecnomics" that I listened to last year. Contrary to my expectations, I learned almost nothing about Austrian economics. In contrast, although I often disagree with various aspects of Teaching Company courses, I almost always find them interesting and worth the time and money. MI's "Home Study" course was free -- and not worth that price.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Diana recommends the Reason Papers - published by the Mises Institute - and I share her enthusiasm. As Peter Cresswell has posted, Mises.org, has an impressive archive of a wide range publications and books that are freely available online. The authors are a who's who of individualists and Austrian economists. This is a wonderful resource that I heartily recommend.

Whoa boy, the internet is a fabulous thing, isn't it. Just after I tested my link to a JARS abstract for accuracy, I noticed that in the same issue, there is a review by Robert Campbell of Tibor Machan's book, Ayn Rand. Now, based on reading some of Machan's other books, and remembering the challenges of finding in them a train of well-integrated and well-expressed thought, and after getting nothing out of his contribution to The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand -- and after an exchange like this on a really basic point in philosophy and in Objectivism -- I wouldn't expect him to produce a book on Ayn Rand's philosophy that would be especially interesting or worth the time.

On that note, I ask you to compare Campbell's review with that by Robert Bass.

Campbell regards Machan's book as a welcome contribution to Rand studies. Frankly, I wasn't able to get much past an opening shot:

"Machan was eminently prepared to write this book. He has been actively promoting Randian ideas since the late 1960’s. Because he was excommunicated during the days of the Nathaniel Branden Institute for asking the wrong questions, he never got close to Rand’s inner circle ..."

(Never mind what the story of Machan's "excommunication" actually was, which had nothing to do with "asking the wrong questions.")

Near the end, we have more gratuitous shots at Rand:

"Ayn Rand, as we well know, did not dwell in an established academic niche. Ignoring critics, villainizing them, or slamming them preemptively could never yield the pragmatic outcomes for her that they sometimes garner for members of the Establishment. Instead, such tactics encouraged her followers to identify themselves as the righteous remnant, hunkering down amidst irreversible cultural decline to await the final combat of the Children of Light with the Children of Darkness. The two thousand year old mind-set of religious sectarianism seems to have merged over time with Rand’s feeling that she was one of a very few rational people in a world that was steadily getting more irrational. Sectarianism is mercifully absent from Machan’s book. But that is precisely because, unlike Rand, he has always acted on the belief that every criticism deserves a response."

Aside from the misrepresentation in this swipe, what is this doing in an academic philosophy article? What relevance does it have to the ideas under discussion?

Rob Bass, on the other hand, comes at the book straightforwardly and asks a most valid initial question, namely, whether the book achieves its purported objective of attracting an academic audience to Rand's ideas. He then goes on to show amply that it doesn't, starting with the fact that the poor editing alone is enough to significantly hinder its purpose. (In the style appropriate to a written journal article, he is reserved and matter-of-fact in his overall assessment of the book. I can recall reasonably well from personal conversation Rob's more blunt estimation of the book.)

Chris,

As a concrete suggestion, how about Reason Papers? It doesn't claim to be (nor is it) a journal devoted to Ayn Rand's philosophy. (That's good.) It's friendly to work on or related to Ayn Rand's philosophy. (That's even better.) I've got nothing but praise for its editor, Aeon Skoble. Whatever our philosophic disagreements, he's a reasonable, thoughtful, and fair philosopher -- and all-around fine fellow. (That's best of all.)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Dan Edge writes:

Campbell is becoming more and more like MSK, from the snideness to the blatant attempted character assassination. And he is consistently destroying any credibility JARS could have had.

This is pissing me off, too, because JARS should and sometimes does contain some decent and important work (I say this having made a modest contribution myself in the latest issue), and now its associate editor has been going into meltdown mode. It's pissing me off because I have an article kind-of in the works (basically several pages' worth of a compilation of notes) that would be well-suited for a journal of the orientation of JARS but no other journals that I can think of. (My article is more theoretical than what I believe is appropriate for The Objective Standard, which is focused on politics and culture.) I had been thinking that even despite this, I could put this stuff aside as silly personal mudslinging, and get a competent review of any submission I make, but I may have to rethink this. I've also been mulling over things that Diana and others have been saying about the need to uphold some serious rigor and standards in Rand scholarship, and how this consideration applies to JARS. So happens that some fun pomo-generator-quoting on HPO led me to info on the Sokal affair, and at one point i go, "Oh, shit, what if some mole decides to pull a Sokol on JARS? Would the editorial process be strong enough to keep it out?" The whole parody on the jargonization of discourse (among other things) only got me more aggravated about the jargonizing of Rand in places like RR about which I've already been apprehensive.

I'm trying to liken my present situation to what Rand scholars back in the early '70s were thinking as far as publishing options go, where The Personalist was a major option. For one thing, anyway, it wasn't explicitly billed as a journal of Rand studies, though considerable discussion was going on there. And articles of dubious quality like Nozick's "On the Randian Argument" were getting through. So happens that I think there was value in its getting through and out there for discussion, and in the opportunity it afforded for people like the Dougs to refute it. Of course, we're much further along in the state of Rand scholarship than back then, and Chris Sciabarra has a much better understanding of Objectivism than John Hospers (editor of The Personalist) did. The fact of Hospers and other contributors (including Branden, though the story behind his break with Rand was still basically unknown at the time) being "persona non grata" wouldn't have particularly bothered me as a Rand scholar. That, plus: at that time, where else, journal-wise, does discussion of Rand's ideas take place, if you've got something worthwhile to contribute to it?

Anyway, I'm working through trying to understand Diana's arguments as they relate to academic standards. I should note that I'm not an academic or an inspiring academic. Even if I were and I sought publication in a journal like Social Philosophy and Policy, the particular item I have sort-of in the works would be of more specific, focused interest to students of Objectivism. It seems that part of Diana's argument is that publishing in JARS, due to whatever standards that permit things of lower quality to get through (the first thing that pops to my mind is this vicious piece (hey, Ghs would remember these jerks well from A2)), would be to do harm to the serious study of Rand scholarship. Even though JARS does occasionally have some quality articles. All I'm interested in doing is getting some quality ideas out there in a suitable format, unrelated to any academic-career pursuit (which, again, I'm not seeking anytime in the forseeable future). Many of the people associated with JARS I have no problem with, they have some valuable things to say, and they aren't caught up in all the personalities-conflicts. What I'm disappointed in is the present lack of a general philosophy journal on Objectivism that meets all the right standards (run by very knowledgeable Objectivists, has genuine blind-peer-review, doesn't have personal agendas one way or the other among its editorial staff, leaves objective room for knowledgeable and honest open debate while rejecting the obviously ignorant, sloppy and/or vicious pieces). What's the holdup?

I suppose I could go on, but I'm a bit spent for now.

--Brant

Your last post was pathetic. Some of us prefer civil and intelligent debate.

Who gives a good goddamn how many copies of PARC have been sold?  What does this have to do with the evidence presented in PARC? 

They don't care about the evidence in PARC. This is an effort at evading their own experience.

Until recent years, it seemed like the anti-ARI forces were the ones blazing trails. They were the ones demanding debate--and claiming supporters of ARI were refusing because they had no arguments to offer. Etc. Now TOC is falling apart, ARI is doing amazing things, and, on the Internet at least, the few remaining supporters of the Brandens have been relegated to a mostly inactive site where the only topics that draw any interest are ones about Solo and ARI.

How to make sense of this all? Well, if you're rational, you check your premises. But if you're not, you deny the facts. You deny that PARC is having in impact. You deny that ARI deals with outside scholars--even though they just announced an ARI-sponsored event that includes big name non-Objectivist intellectuals. You brush aside the inroads scholars like Tara Smith are making in academia because they don't cite your favorite intellectuals. You ascribe IOS/TOC/TAS's self-destruction to poor management. Etc., etc., etc.

That is why this issue is so important to them. Without it they have the face the fact that their time is up. They have been left in the dust by those who value Ayn Rand and value Objectivism.

See, you can't answer a simple question! Ten copies, yes or no? And don't count the 37,700 copies your wife picked up on that desperate cross-country buying trip, which I understand was a response to this Campbell thread.

FYI, I didn't buy ANY copies of your book because it'd be IMMORAL to put money in your pocket! I found my copy in a dumpster behind an apartment complex--you wouldn't believe what people throw away that I end up selling on e-Bay--richly annotated with obscenities.

--Brant

I'm frankly shocked at the seriousness with which Campbell and the OLers are treating this issue.   Who gives a good goddamn how many copies of PARC have been sold?  What does this have to do with the evidence presented in PARC? 

Campbell is becoming more and more like MSK, from the snideness to the blatant attempted character assassination.  And he is consistently destroying any credibility JARS could have had. 

--Dan Edge

You bought more than that yourself, didn't you, Brant?

This is SO rich, it must go on...

A simple question, yes or no: Has PARC sold over ten copies? Yes or no. C'mon, you can do it. You can answer this simple question, unless your publisher is cheating on you.

--Brant

Today I paid a brief, nauseating visit to O-Lying to see a caricature of myself that was being talked about here. I read the attached thread & left. That one brief encounter with maggotry was more than enough for a lifetime. Perhaps I should have lingered & looked around. I might have spotted this gem, which has just been sent to me:

From Barbara Branden:

Barbara

Then, I received this, from Casey, who still can't log on:

Will someone please post on the "How many copies did Mr. Valliant's book
sell" thread the ludicrous claim that Peikoff plagiarized Branden's
"definition" of self-esteem -- which was shown to be a near verbatim quote
from Atlas Shrugged. I can't post yet, but someone should post it, because Linz, and Mike Mazza, and Chris Cathcart, left that one out of the list of his plagiarism charges.

Well, that takes care of BB's second e-mail to Campbell. But of greater interest is this clear indication of whose bidding the professor, like his academic colleague Sciabarra, is out to do. No matter the cost to their own integrity or independence.

I now agree with James Valliant. In my Borders speech I was way too easy on Barbara. The evil of the woman with the serpent's tongue runs very, very deep. As does that of her Roids.

Linz

As one reviewer put it, Richard's ORC is "easily the best reference center that I know of on Ayn Rand and Objectivism.."

Nice to have you on board here, Richard. I've found your Objectivism Reference Center a very useful resource -- one especially useful for bloggers.

Thanks for keeping it going.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Earlier in the thread, Robert Campbell asked: "How many nonfiction books by or about Rand were published in 2005?" This is an easy enough question to answer, and I'll go it a bit better and include some other recent years:

• 2006 (to date): 2 (Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics and Kathleen Touchstone's Then Athena Said)
• 2005: 6 "about" (Frederick Cookinham's The Age of Rand, Donald Leslie Johnson's The Fountainheads, Robert Mayhew's Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem, Erika Holzer's Ayn Rand: My Fiction-Writing Teacher, William Thomas's The Literary Art of Ayn Rand, and PARC) and 2 "by" (Ayn Rand Answers and Three Plays)
• 2004: 4 (Reginald Firehammer's The Hijacking of a Philosophy, Jeff Britting's Ayn Rand, Robert Mayhew's Ayn Rand and Song of Russia, and Robert Mayhew's Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living)

I don't have any sales figures, but I would not be surprised if PARC had outsold most of these, excepting the books published under Rand's own name, which I don't think Valliant had any intention of comparing with. It's certainly gotten more publicity than most of them.

Six of the 12 books about Rand are carried by the Ayn Rand Bookstore. I doubt any of the other six are outselling PARC. Does a copy of The Age of Rand or The Fountainheads grace your bookshelf? Probably not. (OK, I've got all of these except one, but I'm far from the norm.)

--
Richard Lawrence
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

It's clear from your obsession with such things that PARC has you scared shitless. As has been well-documented and plain for all in the Objectivist world to see, the book is slowly bringing about the collapse of the whole dishonest world of false Objectivism, which you have made the cornerstone of your emotional well-being and self-esteem, and one in which you can pass yourself off as actually intelligent and a worthwhile intellectual because you're surrounded by the dishonest and/or confused.

As Casey Fahey has observed and laid out at length, this bizarro world of love/hate, acceptance/nonacceptance, respect/disrespect of Ayn Rand and Objectivism would not have existed to any extent like we've seen if the Brandens had never gotten away with creating a situation where people could make the case to Newbies to Ayn Rand--and have them swallow it--that there is some need for "alternative", more "open" Objectivist study and advocacy and appreciation for Ayn Rand other than that which the ordinary, non-Peikoff hating, non-ARI-hating Objectivist community had going and have continued with to great success. 

So, your little world that was ultimately based on or at least significantly bolstered by the Branden's lies is falling apart around you and the better people are jumping ship--some of them mentioned upthread. So you're understandably upset and a little panicky. I can see that and so can everyone else when we read a thread like this from you.

Relax, open your mind, let go of your shame of having been so wrong and having swallowed uncritically so much bullshit about Ayn Rand, learn to understand Objectivism at the level that even many of the non-academics on SOLO do, see how it connects to reality, then join the many who have had the honesty to reevaluate everything and drop all this ridiculous faux Objectivism and bashing of Objectivists and Ayn Rand.

Either that or just have the honesty and conviction to drop all this Ayn Rand business altogether, and get a real life and stop spending your time posting these messages to people who know better and aren't going to buy your insipid nonsense. You'll be a lot happier either way as far as I can tell.

Think about it.

Does the letter to Hospers shed any light on the "break"?

I have been asked to comment on the following by Mr. Campbell:

"I used to think that Mr. Valliant was genuinely willing to discuss or debate the issues raised by his book with nearly anybody in an open forum. I have learned through hard experience that this is all a facade. So has Chris Sciabarra. So will Neil Parille, if he hasn't already. Sooner or later, Mr. Valliant will berate and condemn anyone who does not accept his purported arguments for the moral perfection of Ayn Rand and the cosmic evil radiated by 'the Brandens.' Hint: Mr. Valliant lets Mr. Fahy or Ms. Valliant or Mr. Weiss sling the insults, well before he unleashes his own."

Notice that Fred and Casey and I are interchangeable units all sharing the exact same views in precisely the same way at the very same time by a means one can only presume is not independent thought. We will all engage the same persons -- and shun them -- at the same time and for the same reasons -- always. Or, at least, it is all somehow being "coordinated" behind the scenes.

Sincere opinions cannot be involved -- that's for sure.

I also have to wonder what my arguments for Rand's "moral perfection" were, since I don't recall ever arguing this, as readers of PARC know.

I also have to wonder how I have ever publicly "berated" Chris Sciabarra or Neil or even Mr. Campbell. Indeed, he notes the perfectly civilized discussion I had with Chris about my book -- and my initial willingness to engage nearly everyone about PARC, even him -- but this counts for nothing compared to the vast ARI conspiracy-theories substituting for thought in Campbell's brain. "We" think alike, write alike and have no discernible differences among us -- don't cha know? Any betrayals on Chris' part, any disgusting insults Campbell himself lobs, and then evades, are just ignored.

It is equally a mystery to me how my criticisms of Firehammer can be construed as "revenge," or anything but genuine concern for a POSITION he took.

Finally, the delay in my participation here was the result of my recent bad health, including a trip to the hospital -- not some planned "timing" to let others like Casey and Fred issue "insults" first. The dark conspiracies creeping around in Campbell's mind seem endless.

But what "insults" is he referring to anyway? For "insults of" should we read "considered arguments of"?

The quote is from a letter she wrote to Hospers. It really is perfect, isn't it?

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

I confess I tuned out when he started on all that Binswanger/Kelley stuff. But thanks for adding to the list. Great Rand quote, too. Very a propos.