No Diana, Ayn Rand isn't optional.

PARC is though. And it would have been a far better book if it had spent a chapter on exactly why: A demonstration of how Ayn Rand's achievements speak for themselves for all those who, for some reason or other, missed it. Leonard Peikoff did something like this for Aristotle once (in OTI), it was brief but brilliant and it made one feel passion and deep respect for Aristotle.

I don't really buy that there is a problem here. ..The biographical issues are a separate matter. Study them if you want, ignore them if you don't.

In this very thread alone both weary Jennifer and Dianna's pal have both made it clear that, to them, biography is philosophy. This issue is very real.

The methodology is only 'laid out for you' to the extent that you, qua Rick, let it be.

The nature of objective reality lays it out for us Tim, I have no say in that. And if you think you can choose to 'let it be' or withdraw your consent about methodology then I'd like to see you use a coin for a parachute or Marmite for money. You will find, of course, that reality wont let you. Nature proscribes method, both in physics and in scholarship.

Basically, it comes down to this - if you want the philosophical issues to be in the ascendency, sing louder.

You're changing the subject.
This wasn't about the content of our forums, this was about how to philosophise.

In the capacity of being [ie qua] Objectivists, I put it to you that the methodology is laid out for us.

I don't really buy that there is a problem here. The methodology was laid out in Ayn Rand's books. Anyone who wants to study it can do so.

The biographical issues are a separate matter. Study them if you want, ignore them if you don't. The methodology is only 'laid out for you' to the extent that you, qua Rick, let it be.

Basically, it comes down to this - if you want the philosophical issues to be in the ascendency, sing louder. I for one would be quite happy with that. But I'm not going to try and stop others from doing their thing in the meantime.

Call me crazy, but I want to go out on a radical limb here and suggest that we qua Objectivists are wasting our time studying Ayn Rand. We should be studying Objectivism instead.
What I was saying was that (a) who's this 'we' kimosabe?, and (b) each man can decide for himself what he wants to study.

a) You, me, Solonaughts, Objectivists, philosophyers. Everybody.
b) You don't know what 'qua' means do you?

In the capacity of being [ie qua] Objectivists, I put it to you that the methodology is laid out for us. Is studying tea leaves, horoscope or the breakfast menu of a celebrity the study of Objectivism? No it is not.

Even in economics, which you know best of all, there is a prescribed methodology. One does not learn his economics, nor mathematics, nor any science, by contemplating the biographical documents of economist's lives. Why then in philosophy, which is of a higher order of dicipline than economics, would you seek to reverse this common sense?
Why, in short, do people keep mixing it up? I never have!

You seem to be saying that because, in your opinion, someone is mixing them up, the two studies are necessarily always mixed up.

Well I don't know how you got that impression when all I've said from the start is that the two diciplines here should be parted.

When I had this matter out with Matthew Scarbara I was at pains to point out how I value biography. Trust me, I follow the lives of the economists and philosophers I study as much, or more than, anybody. Hell, I even study their faces and draw my own caracatures of them all in my notes! Don't say I'm against biography, because I'm not! Okay?

As far as the Don Watkins attempt to mix biography into syllogism I'm unimpressed. Hero worship is part of Objectivism and Ayn Rand is the prime candidate, indeed. However, if looking outside oneself to worship of 'Ayn Rand Objectivist' is a prerequisite for being a healthy Objectivist then that would preclude Ayn Rand herself from being an Objectivist! I'm fairly sure she qualifies, so Watkins- you strike out.

For an different kind of argument as to why Ayn Rand's life should matter to Objectivists, check out Don Watkins' short essay Is Ayn Rand Optional?. (Since I didn't write it, I don't want to repost the text here.)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Rick,

Great to see you again. I agree with you. To interpret, philosophy and science concerns itself with those things which CAN be known. Speculations about what CANNOT BE KNOWN, ie: The moral perfection of AR or NB or BB's innermost thoughts thirty or forty or fifty years ago, are idle. That is, useless.

Mike Erickson

In response to my contention that there is an appropriate, objective, approach to scholarship (ie 'How I Philosophise') you responded 'Each to his own'..

That wasn't what I responding to. I was responding to this statement:

Call me crazy, but I want to go out on a radical limb here and suggest that we qua Objectivists are wasting our time studying Ayn Rand. We should be studying Objectivism instead.

What I was saying was that (a) who's this 'we' kimosabe?, and (b) each man can decide for himself what he wants to study.

You also say:

Philosophical appreciation is not the same as biographical appreciation. Why do people keep mixing them up?

As I said, the two don't have to be mixed up. You seem to be saying that because, in your opinion, someone is mixing them up, the two studies are necessarily always mixed up. But the (unspecified) example doesn't prove the general case. So your conclusion ("we" are wasting our time studying Ayn Rand), doesn't follow.

You yourself acknowledged there is value in biographical study, so you should just be pushing for it to be done properly, not that it shouldn't be done at all.

|RG|>What I want to know are the premises, the reasoning and the conclusions. Is it sound?
|RG|> Is it valid?
|TS|> Each to his own, surely you would go along with that Rick?
!!$%##??!!!
|RG|> Biography is not philosophy.
|RG|> Lust is not a tool of cognition. Celebricy is not a tool of cognition.
|RG|> when it comes to scholarship there's no room for relativism.
|TS|> Rick, who said anything about mixing them up or relativism?

You, for one.
In response to my contention that there is an appropriate, objective, approach to scholarship (ie 'How I Philosophise') you responded 'Each to his own'.

eg
Is there such a thing as truth? Each to his own!
Are there objective rights? Each to his own!
Do good and evil exist? Each to his own!
What is and is not science? Each to his own!
What is objective law? Each to his own!
What is it to philosophise? Each to his own!
Realitivists have an answer for everything. Each to his own!

Perhaps we're missinterpreting each other?

Economics is great, but I don't pretend it's philosophy.
Biography is great, but I don't pretend it's philosophy.

Science is science, it isn't any arbitrary each-to-his-own practise one chooses to call "science." The same must be said of philosophy.

Tim, correct me if I'm mistaken but are you disputing this and taking the position of my cartoon Kant?

Rick, who said anything about mixing them up or relativism? Some people focus on philosophy, some on biography. You seem to be saying that the study of both necessarily means they become mixed, therefore we shouldn't study biography at all.

I don't agree that the two subjects necessarily have to become mixed. Obviously they can, but then your criticism should be of that, not of the study of biography in toto.

Rick, I'll keep that in mind when I light the candles on my altar of Rand.

Give me a break.

I've said all I have to say for now on this subject, as I've already become weary.

Tim,-
"Each to his own, surely you would go along with that Rick?"

No way! In politics and economics laissez faire features large, but when it comes to scholarship there's no room for relativism. Philosophical appreciation is not the same as biographical appreciation. Why do you mixing them up?

I think, like JennaW, biography is useful and interesting. For inspiration, for courage. But philosophy is an intellectual task and Ayn Rands work, as Shayne well says, stands for itself without us needing to know what makeup she wore, her breakfast menu, the name of her cats...

Jennifer,-
Biography is not philosophy. When you base your conception of life on the personality of a pin-up boy (like Tom Cruise) or girl that's more of a cult than a philosophy. Lust is not a tool of cognition. Celebricy is not a tool of cognition.

"It is important to know Rand's biographical details, because if *she* couldn't live according to such principles, who could?"

I think that if the book of 'Atlas Shrugged' had come to us with author unattributed it would still contain the answer to that question, just as now. *You* can live according to these principles. We all can, must, and it's not too soon to start.

Jennifer, when PARC first came out I thought it was great because it went against the ARI trend of just being silent to criticism. This was a bold facing of it, so I thought it was good.

Unfortunately, PARC implicitly and explicitly re-inforces a bogus method of judging Ayn Rand. It implies that we can't judge Ayn Rand soley by what she achieved in the most important area of her life--her career--we also need to know about the details of her private life.

It's not that I don't think PARC should have been written. But I think a strong proviso should have been made to the effect that Ayn Rand's professional achievements are by far the overwhelmingly most important measure of her person, and any details of her private life can only be of extremly marginal significance in comparison.

Ayn Rand's works speak for themselves, they are the last word on the subject of who she was.

Jenna, Rand's work *is* her own personal opinion. (See Shayne's points below.) And individuality means exercising one's own mind, which is exactly what I'm doing.

Shayne, if I go by your perspective, then fine, I do not understand all I need to know. Enough said.

I'm going about it this way: study the philosophy. Then study *how* Rand implemented her philosophy in her life in general, from *her* words. Then read others' interpretations, while all along, forming my own contextual interpretations with the standard set on reality and my own life. However, I am less (if at all) interested in Rand's personal life or her personal opinion; I have my own life and my own opinions, which I consider different (you know, the whole individuality thing).

I don't object to setting the record straight, particularly for the culture at large. What I don't understand is that some Objectivists would need to read PARC in order to appreciate the genius and integrity of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand's achievements speak for themselves--if you really understand Objectivism, if you really appreciate Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, then it should be clear and obvious that the Brandens have been distorting the facts, that any empahsis on Rand's "private life" is irrelevant except as a side issue--no biographer can give us a better picture of who she was than she gave us herself in her writings.

Shayne, I am fully aware of her achievements. I was trying to make a general point.

My point, and perhaps I did not make it clear enough, is that many have dismissed Rand -- and her ideas -- because personally she has been portrayed to be somewhat neurotic, or "heroic despite..." Congratulations for your clarity, but it disturbed me that she seemed to be so far off the mark based on those biographies. I accepted them as proper record, and now I am revisiting them to see if I've been mistaken.

The record should be accurate. In a tabloid culture where people will use such details as bullets to discredit ideas, the facts must be clear.  

Jennifer,

Ayn Rand's true achievement is right in front of you when you read her novels or read her technical philosophy or cultural analyses. Her private life as interpreted in various biographies is but a very small thing next to these. If you need her private life to know whether she practiced what she preached, then you aren't even looking at what she practiced! If it disturbs you to entertain the idea that she might have made a huge mistake in her private life you've completely missed the point!

How could she architect and implement something as great as Atlas Shrugged if she did not practice what she preached? She couldn't! Atlas IS her practicing what she preached. Her philosophy is another monumental achievement--it isn't merely her preaching--to synthesize that philosophy she had to *practice* what she preaches. You can't come up with stuff that good without an absolute commitment to reason and reality.

The proof that Ayn Rand practiced what she preached is right there in front of you, when you read Atlas you are seeing Ayn Rand--that is her. It's not that her private life isn't her, it's that her professional life is so much more of her, and it required a much more stringent commitment to her own philosophy that I don't even know why anyone would ask whether she practiced what she preached. It's ridiculous question.

Firstly, Tom Cruise did not create Scientology.

Secondly, Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth. It is important to know Rand's biographical details, because if *she* couldn't live according to such principles, who could? This is a huge point, and I think many people are letting the biographical "sordid details" cloud this important piece. Remember her words: "And I mean it."

This process of discovery is to validate whether or not she did -- and lived by it.

Why not do both? Those who want to study Rand the person can do so, as can those who want to study the philosophy.

Each to his own, surely you would go along with that Rick?