Philosophy and real life... together? What a concept!

Fred is right, Landon speaks seldom, but it's always to the point. Others speak often and constantly parry any point.

However, the kind of mind that could read PARC and not get what Landon got, or trivialize the contents in the way some do, often, is not the kind of mind that appreciates the quality Landon does.

There's a great saying, that I have come to appreciate more in the wake of PARC: Never teach a pig to sing -- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Sorry if that's too cynical on Valentine's Day, but it's a lesson learned hard.

Landon doesn't post very often but when he does he invariably hits the nail on the head.

Even apart from the personal details, PARC is full of good philosophical insights and James demonstrates repeatedly his very deep understanding of Objectivism. Just by way of one example, I have previously mentioned - I believe it was in connection with some typically snotty comment by Fred Seddon concerning some We the Living controversy - that James' comments on that matter were particularly illuminating.

Well that's actually what I got the most of from PARC. There are a lot of ideas that start from the Branden's (mis)interpretation of Objectivism. Some prime examples of this have always been presented as flaws in the underlying philosophy which needed dealt with. Things like the "judgementalism" of Objectivism, the integration of emotion and reason, and major flaws in the Objectivist view of love.

There are many others but I don't really feel like getting out PAR, PARC, and all my N. Branden books to start doing the cross-reference work at the moment.

But I think it's pretty important to know if these are actual flaws in the philosophy, or if they originated from people who recieved/took the charge of spreading and/or developing the philosophy who never quite understood it themselves in the first place and were later given good reason to make it look bad.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

You're free to follow your own advice any time, Phil. No one's forcing you to wring your hands here so earnestly, you know.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

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

> if this be a contest of ideas then we can only win by participating in the contest.

Yes. And participating in a contest of IMPORTANT AND LIFE-CHANGING **PHILOSOPHICAL** IDEAS is exactly what I was advocating that more people find it to their interest to spend more of their time doing.

I just checked amazon to see if my review had gone up. It hasn't. Must have been too hot to handle. Imagine! I read ALL the previous reviews while there. This one brought me up with a start:

This book has literally caused a sensation! No less than three former lecturers and a now-former director at "The Objectivist Center" (which has close ties to the Brandens) have left that organization in the wake of reading it. The most popular website providing an open discussion of Rand's ideas SOLOHQ has been shattered, in part, because of the debate about this book, with founder Lindsay Perigo leading the new SOLOPassion.com in an on-going and historic debate about Ayn Rand and her legacy. The website of Joe Maurone, whose work had been deeply influenced by Branden, has been taken down. Dozens of writers from across the spectrum no longer believe in O'Connor's alleged alcoholism. An emerging generation of writers is now seeing Rand in an entirely new light. All in the one year since the release of this book.

PARC brought a momentous and unforeseen upheaval in its wake, for sure. One of my former SOLOHQ colleagues who hated PARC's being discussed called it "that stupid book" without ever reading it. And TOC moved quickly to exploit the divisions on SOLO. I think SOLO emerged even more strongly as a place for the "open discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas," but as the fatwa controversy demonstrated, it's not only Brandroids who can't cope with such open debate. The spectacle of folk scurrying off to their safe zones was dismaying. As I keep saying, if this be a contest of ideas then we can only win by participating in the contest. And sometimes that will be among ourselves as well.

Linz

*obscene and uncivil response to cresswell deleted*

You aren't Shakespeare.

Gee.

Hadn't realized I was so unclear. Maybe I should write in crayon or finger paints...God forbid that there should be a nuance.

You must have a hell of a time with Shakespeare.

Phil,

Why don't you try reducing and simplifying what you are trying to say in the first place? By the time those who are reading your statements have cleared away all the qualifications upon qualifications, the statement you are actually making is so slight and so faint as to hardly be worth the shitstorm of words you have used to say it in the first place.

Once again, -several- subjects and aspects (and contexts).

Not "the" subject.

I can sure sympathize with the plight of the persistently misinterpreted. It just seems that you really don't care about the subject, or, at least, about discussing it.

Misstatement or oversimplification of this kind does not have to be dishonesty; it can be mental sloppiness or writing hurriedly in anger or frustration at having to deal fairly with someone. (Or even a careless "attention span issue" of trying to stay on top of too many multiple mental or online threads at once.) But the conscientious, scrupulous person with an old-fashioned sense of fairness bends over backwards to doublecheck (even if it means he has to withdraw a criticism of a person or position he bitterly wants to demolish).

Substantial misstatement can take a number of forms (lately the misstatement/oversimplification of what I have said takes a couple of them, as does the misstatement/oversimplification of what has been said about the role of philosophy in history):

i) "I am opposed to an aspect of X" becomes "I am unalterably opposed to X". [switching a subcategory to the entire category]
ii) "I believe philosophy drives history" becomes "I believe philosophy is the only driver of history" [switching vagueness about whether something is the only cause to outright statement that it is the only cause]
iii) "I believe examples a,b,c should not be a major public focus" to "I believe examples a,b,c,d,e should not be discussed at all" [adding new examples; broadening context]
iv) "I am opposed to x under certain circumstances" to "I am opposed to x" [dropping context]

Nothing will antagonize someone more or make a civil debate impossible than to have his views oversimplified or words put in his mouth.

"Make things up"? I wasn't talking about that specific post's explicit content, Phil, but the sum of all of your posts. It was a global evaluation of the observable reality we can all read, not an analysis of your words.

Is it "bio-minutiae" if many of the critics of Rand's ideas -- like our recent example from Canada -- are obsessed with it?

And, from a purely biographical perspective, if Rand libeled the Brandens, previously her chief spokesmen, in 1968, as they both allege, is that trivia? If, instead, it was they who libeled Rand in 1968, that would also be important, right?

If Rand's cruel treatment drove her husband to excessive drinking, as they both allege, is that trivia?

I can go on, but it was neither my book nor the facts of reality behind the critics' morbid concern with these issues. It was the Brandens.

Phil:
"... and it is astonishingly stupid for complete outsiders who didn't know the parties or their history to try to judge this 40 years later and make pronouncements with certainty about it.]

Well, then, Phil, go should go take it up with Barbara and Nathaniel, who wrote the fucking books in the first place. When you say this to Barbara at O living, maybe then you'll be taking seriously.

Phil: "I have -very little- interest in i) whether her husband drank or what he used to clean his paint brushes, ii) whether or not she took her American name from a typewriter and iii) why she broke with some friends decades ago. iv) Or who was more to blame in rifts and personal splits like AB and his wife JB."

So again, go lecture the Brandens on why they shouldn't have written the damn books. Put up or shut up.

Phil, the typewriter incident, by itself, is perhaps trivial, but as part of the Brandens account, it becomes another brick in the wall. And the drinking is hardly trivial. But whatever.

deleted

What a bunch of fucking idiots!!!!!!!

1. One of you can't read the fact of which bios I have said I have -not- read.

2. Another can't read simple english that I wasn't saying I had no interest in -any- biographical info.

3. A third person can't grasp that biological trivia refers to things like the typewriter and the drinking not -everything- in AR's life.

4. A fourth person equates my position with -defending- the BB bio and attacking the other one.

5. And the next....oh, jesus...why bother...

What part of try to grasp what a person's **actual statements are** carefully and precisely before posting an emotional, distorted, oversimplified, and intellectually sloppy reply...do you people not understand???

!!!

Phil:
"I never lost that."

Without the need for attacking Phil on this...this is a little strange to me, that one could read the Branden bios and NOT lose at least a little respect for Rand. I think that this may be the key to the varied reception to the debate over the biographies.
"The books made her more 'Human' is a common" quote, as if Rand was intended to be a god or whatnot. That's an insinuation that people who admire Rand are necessarily making her into an infallible God, but I'd counter that people who say that her ideals were too high, etc. are looking for an "out." It's the Enright Building all over again..."One couldn't feel homey, and cozy, and well...sloppy." It's as if Rand's writings are the Enright House, and the Branden's bios are the need to feel more "at home" in such a building.

But the Branden's claims, and Valliant's defense, are NOT about "trivial biominutiae," but the essence of Objectivism as played out in its author's life.

> It restored to me the hero that I once had in Ayn Rand. [Kelly]

I never lost that.

Nor do I think the kinds of trivial biominutiae I itemized affect that either way.

Other than that, with regard to james, fred, etc., I think I made my points and gave my reasoning so clearly (my post was certainly long enough to cover everything) and with such precise qualifications that misstatements of what I said should not be possible. So I'm going to pass on debating (or asking people to reread) the points I made above.

The truth of the matter is that the biographies were not merely biographies, but attacks on the philosophy itself, since Rand invited the comparison. When Nathaniel Branden writes that Objectivism is full of holes, and HE knows them, and justifies this claim with JUDGEMENT DAY, we've moved beyond mere biography. But people like Phil will keep downlaying this aspect of the Branden's bios when it suits them. So people like Phil need to be countered by people like James and Casey, and if Amazon is a battlefield against people like Phil, so be it.

Phil, I am tired of hearing how PARC continues the trend to focus on Ayn Rand and not her philosophy. Ayn Rand is the greatest philosopher that the world has ever known. The details matter! They matter partly because it is just interesting to know the truth about great historical figures. I would think a history buff like you would be on that bandwagon. And because of the new and important aspect of her philosophy (getting ideas from reality and applying them to living), her life and the way it was lived was important.

You say we should all focus on spreading Objectivism instead. Well, not me. I am much less interested in spreading Objectivism than I am in living it. And PARC helped me live it better. It restored to me the hero that I once had in Ayn Rand. I could once again look at her and say during difficult times for me, "It is possible to do this. It is possible to live rationally. It is possible to succeed." I would rather have that feeling and the motivation to keep trying to do right than all the converts in the world.

"The obsessive focus on proving oneself right in every public forum about whose 'take' on the events of her life is most accurate (and trying to prove how alternative views are not merely wrong but dishonest and badly motivated)..."

Oh, I see, you were just referring to the events of someone's life. The facts about that you think can never be established as right or wrong. Am I still distorting?

James in particular will love this one. Like, what does this do to the criminal justice system? How can we ever know what someone actually did or didn't do - and, sheesh, making it worse by actually obsessing about it? I mean it's only a man's life which is at stake. Or, as in the case of Ayn Rand, her name and reputation and whether she can be correctly characterized, as you glibly put it, by "her anger, disappointment, bitterness, or alienation". Where the fuck did you get that from?

P.S.: Note once again how the alleged criticism of "some Objectivists" is really a smokescreen for the real target which is Ayn Rand herself. But as always, regardless of what we say, it'll be poor Phil who is victimized and misunderstood (despite his vicious attacks on us and against which we are not entitled to defend ourselves - unless it is to submit to abject acquiesence to Phil's charges).

ATTENTION: I WON'T CONTINUE TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP THINGS:

1. > "doesn't care one bit about Rand's biography" [James Valliant]

Jim, please read what I post carefully. The phrase 'one bit' would be a very important statement, had I said it or that that was my attitude.

But it is your own invention.

2. ...As is this out and out fabrication by Fred Weiss: "like who can ever know what's right anyway."

What turned Rand-criticism "biographical"? The Branden books, not PARC. Are you advocating the "ignore the Brandens" policy of yore?

Incidentally, I think that it reveals something very important about a person, Phil, that he doesn't care one bit about Rand's biography -- no matter how much his life has been profoundly changed by Rand's "ideas" -- and no matter how badly Rand is dishonestly smeared.

"The obsessive focus on proving oneself right".

Yeah, Phil, like who can ever know what's right anyway.

"and ESPECIALLY NOW on an even larger public stage: the pages of Amazon where tens of thousands of people will see it permanently and over the years!!"

Ohmygod what will people think of us?

"making it seem to the less philosophical of the general public"

And not only that but to our prime target audience!!

"the eager enemies of Objectivism in the intellectual world, the culture, academe who would love nothing better than to focus on the thinker's sex life, on the thinker's personal disputes and confrontations, on whether the thinker had feet of clay, on whether the thinker lived up to her code"

Gee, who made an issue of that? Where did that come from? Oh wait, we shouldn't discuss it because what will non-philosophical people think of us.

"Often each side bears some responsiblity in personal leave-takings".

I know, Phil. I mean, look, if Lincoln hadn't fought the Civil War and emancipated the slaves, John Wilkes Booth wouldn't have gotten angry and assassinated him.

No.

Not satisfied with the -above- "biography wars" (which at least had the surface plausibility that a writer's personal reputation has -some- effect on whether the writers' ideas are of interest), why don't we open a few other fronts to distract ourselves further from doing philosophy? In addition to declaring war on the Bosnians, the Serbs, and the Albanians, lets attack our allies, the Macedonians accusing them of improperly raising fruit or shearing sheep on their own property?

The ever-vindictive, ever-personally attacking DMBH, ever distracted from doing actual academic philosophy on her website, has just poked open some more scabs by launching a new front in making front page news of attacks and personal disputes between some of the people in her own side in the '89 schism: Mr. and Mrs. Spch, Dr. RMw, Mr. TBeck.

And this is merely a -widening- of the dispute with Mr. RTrc which at least -claimed- to be philosophical rather than about manners and details of who is an authority on eclipses and pre-Socratic scientists...

Unbelievable.

Simply F*** Unbelievable.

What most interests me about Ayn Rand is that this was a great and noble mind which produced a philosophy desperately needed to save the world and towering novels which inspire people desperately in need of inspiration.

And a clean and clear standard to rally around.

I have -very little- interest in i) whether her husband drank or what he used to clean his paint brushes, ii) whether or not she took her American name from a typewriter and iii) why she broke with some friends decades ago. iv) Or who was more to blame in rifts and personal splits like AB and his wife JB.

[Aside: Often each side bears some responsiblity in personal leave-takings or they just are ill-suited to being friends -- and it is astonishingly stupid for complete outsiders who didn't know the parties or their history to try to judge this 40 years later and make pronouncements with certainty about it.]

And it is incredibly depressing, of all the things to see selected to highlight of all the things one could mention in the very short scope of a "customer book review" such ludicrously small-scale arguments, such non-intellectual material given center stage on Amazon. Moreover these are small-scale issues which have less to do with Ayn Rand own life than with two sides attacking each other's credibility and trying to spread -that- closer to the front page of public consciousness.

I might conceivably have -somewhat- more interest in biographical details of to what extent her anger, disappointment, bitterness, or alienation were quite appropriate vs. unwarranted. But only to the extent it can provide lessons to angry, bitter, alienated, disappointed students of Objectivism. And not to the extent that the question of how one's psychology can incorrectly apply good ideas submerges or becomes the topic of public focus in lieu of debating or explaining or defending the ideas themselves.

The problem is this:

The obsessive focus on proving oneself right in every public forum about whose 'take' on the events of her life is most accurate (and trying to prove how alternative views are not merely wrong but dishonest and badly motivated) -- and ESPECIALLY NOW on an even larger public stage: the pages of Amazon where tens of thousands of people will see it permanently and over the years!! -- is already making it seem to the less philosophical of the general public . . . and to the eager enemies of Objectivism in the intellectual world, the culture, academe who would love nothing better than to focus on the thinker's sex life, on the thinker's personal disputes and confrontations, on whether the thinker had feet of clay, on whether the thinker lived up to her code

***as if there is nothing else about Ayn Rand and in particular her ideas and towering projection of man the hero which is as worthy of writing about . . . of heat, of emotion, of committment, of time and years spent . . . as the disputed personal relationships of her biography***.

Why might it seem to the bystander or onlooker as if these are in fact the most important things about Ayn Rand or her philosophy? Gee, I don't know.

Maybe because by a 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 or 20 to 1 ratio, what are the most heated and passionate topics (witness what are the most active threads on this website) are the ones dealing with personalities and biography. Not the ones explaining, defending, applying, adding context and clarithy to the philosophy and the ideas.

It would be understandable if these biographical debates about intricate details of personal lives were conclusively proven like showing 2 + 2 = 4, were then accepted by everyone without endless rebuttal, and could then go away...sort of like clearing the ground for more philosophical discussions.

But that is not the case.

It would be understandable if the opposing sides on the biographical issues did not possess the intellectual capacity to spread, defend, explain, and apply Objectivism. But my impression is that many of these are highly intelligent people who -do- have the capacity, perhaps not always of being original philosophers, but of devoting their time and mental abilities to spreading, defending, explaining, or applying Objectivism.

They either:

1. Simply don't care as much as I do whether Objectivism succeeds as opposed to being considered a laughable cult of "the Battling Bickersons".

2. Or they are too angry at endlessly hoping to 'squash' their opponents for once and for all (which ain't gonna happen since it hasn't in 40 years).

3. Or they don't enjoy the uphill task of spreading a difficult philosophy in an uncomprehending and sometimes hostile world. It's too hard. Or it doesn't fit their polemical personality. And it isn't *fun* compared to the personal attacks...which can often be done in a lightning post or in "attack mode".

Or all of the above.

....

What is also clear to is that this post is too logical and reasonable to be taken seriously by people hell-bent on and emotionally committed to another course. There is always some excuse for ignoring good advice. Or resenting and insulting the advice-giver. Especially if it would force you to come to a full stop and completely change an entrenched and well-rationalized course of action.

No matter how destructive it is to the future of Objectivism.

Which is something I care passionately about.

But I begin to suspect most of the "unending food-fighters" don't care about as much as they heatedly profess.

Thanks, you guys.

Of course, if Neil took into account what has already been pointed out to him, on more than one occasion, it would take all the punch out of his attempted "criticism."

It's curious that Neil avoids mentioning that Ms. Branden continues to maintain what Neil himself regards as an error. It's obvious even to Neil that the name story cannot be true, and, yet, in response to the demonstration of its falsehood, Ms. Branden stubbornly holds to it. Ms. Branden has even asserted -- being, she says, recently reminded by Nathaniel Branden -- that Rand herself had told the two of them this impossible fable -- about her own name. And, of course, Mr. Branden dishonestly claims to have gotten this straight from Rand herself -- despite the fact that Rand had told the press otherwise in the 30s and in the 60s -- and despite the fact that it cannot be true.

While this is a "minor" point (as PARC observes), it does have an impact on the credibility of the story-tellers -- as does Ms. Branden's invented allegation that ignorance of Rand's American name caused her Russian family to lose contact with her.

Again, if Neil had fairly examined the relevant passages, he would see that Ms. Branden has absurdly "lumped" all of Rand's "breaks" into the same categories herself.

And, still, we have not exhausted the many errors and broader contexts repeatedly pointed out to Neil -- but which he continues to pretend do not exist.

Nice to be back in the trenches, here. Good show!

This is what Neil actually has the nerve to say:

"For example, Valliant begins his attack with the above-mentioned mistake made by Barbara Branden concerning the origins of Rand's name (it wasn't taken from a Remington-Rand typewriter after all). Instead of conceding that Branden made an honest mistake, Valliant uses this mistake to launch an attack on Branden, in particular distorting the reason she gives for Rand losing contact with her family in Russia. Valliant partially quotes Branden but uses ellipses to change the meaning of what she says. He also forgets to tell his readers that the Remington-Rand story was believed until relatively recently by scholars associated with The Ayn Rand Institute.

"To take another example, Barbara Branden says that Rand's followers Allan and Joan Blumenthal left Rand because they were tired of Rand haranguing them on esthetic matters. Valliant falsely accuses Branden of concealing the fact that it was the Blumenthals who left Rand, even though it is clear to anyone who reads Branden's book. And so it goes for virtually every piece of evidence that purports to make up Valliant's "case" against the Brandens. Valliant's distortions of the Brandens' books are so great as to render PARC useless as a critique of their books."

This is utterly repulsive and totally dishonest. It is amazing that after engaging with James on several occasions here on SOLO regarding his questions about PARC, and getting one solid answer after another, he chooses to post THIS!! Uggh!

(James, sometimes you are too nice!!)

Casey

I just submitted a brief review. Gawd, what a process! Anyway, I noted that Scumbarrian Parille had already been trounced by Limber, Weiss & Bucko. I also noted that Scumbarrian Parille linked to O-Lying, the leading Shrine to the Brandens and their poodle Scumbarra. Folk will note these things!

Linz