Ted, you're a moron.

Ooops, that doesn't qualify.

Please Fred, I'm begging!

Just one blog entry. One review. One positive thing you have ever said about anything anywhere.

Pretty please, with sugar on top.

Ted "Big Bang" Keer blathers about "ARI types" supposedly "fighting against straw men" and then he laughably pontificates that the "biggest challenges ARI takes on now are GWB, the Brandens and the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics?"

If Fred S. is too dishonest to argue with, Ted K. is too stupid and ignorant to bother with. "Chris Sciabarra... done more for Objectivism"? Oh brother. And this even after he acknowledges that he doesn't even understand him! How can you respond to crap like that?

Once again Fred, please post one thing or link to any work you have done that has NOT been a petty criticsism. I beg of you. Please.

Also, isn't the fact that Rand is being taken seriously by non-Randians a good thing? Or is Jack. D. Ripper's "purity of essence" all that one should care about?

I don't necessarily agree with or even always understand the trajectory some of Chris Sciabarra's writings. But he's certainly done more for Objectivism as a non-Objectivist than 24 years of trademarking and rehashing Rand has. I wish the ARI all the success it earns, and wish them the opponents they need to get them off their self-referential and intellectually "deduce-it-all-from-Rand" incestuous arses. So much in today's intellectual sphere - such as the seriousness with which consciousness is being taken by today's scientists - has moved beyond the stagnation of the mid 20th Century that it is sad to see ARI types still fighting against straw men such as behaviorists whom it was valid for Rand to attack, but who are now simply irrelevant.

Yet we are stuck with the bugaboos of the 1970's where Ronald Reagan is just about to ban abortion and use the power of prayer to end Soviet Union. And the biggest challenges ARI takes on now are GWB, the Brandens and the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics? Hicks and others who don't need the crutch of Rand have moved on. They let their work stand - or fall - on its own merits. The don't sell to people on just their own mailing lists. Let Peikoff get DIM out of his system so that ARI can move on as well. As long as ARI thinks it has to fight against the Big Bang because some creationists endorse some forms of it - and not because the evidence stakly contradict it - they might as well be tilting at windmills and questing for dragons.

Ted Keer

St. George slaying the dragon is depicted at www.dpsw.org

"And what does it do to the concept of cognition if one has decided to "make room for faith"?"

Duh. That was the point of the cites. Read and learn. Also review the section "On opinion, knowledge and faith" A820/B848 ff.

Fred

"Has anyone else besides Neil read the book?"

Yes, I have and have written a 14 page review focussing on Kant. Let me know if you want it. It's posted somewhere but I don't remember where.

Fred S.

And what does it do to the concept of cognition if one has decided to "make room for faith"?

Such a "cognition" might then of course be "somehow" capable of accessing a realm which is inaccessible to the senses.

But we have an illustrative example of just such a cognition right here: Fred Seddon's dishonest apologetics for Kant and his unrelentingly petty critiques of ARI scholars.

"But let's not forget that it was Kant who famously declared that he felt obliged "to deny reason in order to make room for faith"."

Wrong. He said "knowledge" not "reason." In a footnote to this passage (xxx) Pluhur points out that it is "knowledge" not "cognition" that is being denied. Kant himself points this out at A vii n. 6. Kant never denies that we have cognitive access to the noumena.

Fred S.

"History is a long battle between Attila and the Witch Doctor (or Aristotle and Plato)"

NO way. What she wrote on p. 25 was "What had started as a serious problem between two
camps of serious thinkers soon degenerated to the level where nothing was
left on the field of philosophy but a battle between Witch Doctors and Attila-
ists." Rand identifies Aristotle with the producers, not Attila.

Fred

And check out his web site:

http://www.stephenhicks.org/

He posts reviews of his book as well.

Mr. Mazza,

I read Stephen Hicks' book prior to publication.  I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.

Truth in advertising insert: I contributed a blurb to the back of the dust jacket.

I hope that doesn't dissuade you from giving the book a try.

Robert Campbell

Brant have you been contacting the dead with your weegie board again?

- Jason

Well, Fred, Ayn Rand does not support ARI. She didn't want anyone using her name that way.

--Brant

Neil, now you are demonstrating your difficulty in grasping cause and effect (which I believe has its source in your difficulty in essentializing). It is not that supporting ARI means that you will have a better grasp of Objectivism. It is that if you have a better grasp of Objectivism you will support ARI.

To be perfectly blunt about it, if someone purports to be an Objectivist and does not support ARI, there is something wrong with their grasp of Objectivism. That may be understandable for a newbie, but even there, it shouldn't be for long.

That may or may not be an issue for some of the non-ARI writers you refer to since many of them do not purport to be Objectivists. But if they are not Objectivists, i.e. if they are critical of Objectivism and avowedly reject aspects of it, why should ARI write favorably about them? The purpose of ARI is to promote Objectivism, not its critics. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

I've heard positive things said about Hicks' book from other OAC students. I plan to read it at some point, though it is low on my reading list (I'm not too interested in post-modernisn). Has anyone else besides Neil read the book?

Chris,

The way I see it, the "essence" of the ARI approach is that Objectivism = ARI and ARI = Objectivism. If you aren't part of the ARI, you will not be able to comment intelligently on Rand.

Now, I've never heard it stated so bluntly, but that's the implication. Has anyone in the ARI ever written favorably about a non-ARI writer on Rand? Will the Objective Standard review Hicks' book on post modernism?

We've already talked about this. As I said before in this thread, my NR analogy simply highlights the fact that a few good articles don't equal a good publication, and a few bad articles don't indicate a bad publication.

And as I said before, I NEVER EVER SAID ANYTHING PUBLICALLY ABOUT WHAT I HAVE AND HAVE NOT READ FROM JARS UNTIL I STARTED POSTING ON SOLO. You are continually putting words in my mouth.

You've asserted that you'd read one or more articles in JARS before you made this statement.

No, I didn't. If I did, where?

I didn't think I had to enumerate everything I had or hadn't read when I wrote that post because I didn't think anyone would distort my comments into a blanket condemnation of anything.

Would it help of I switched National Review to The Intellectual Activist? I canceled my subscription to TIA because it has been publishing political analysis that I think is wrong. But I don't condemn it, nor do I think it is an overall bad publication. Nor do I think ill of Rob Tracinski. I might even make a joke about TIA and neo-conservatism one day.

This is the most pathetic and petty insult I've ever had to defend myself from. Your EMTIRE case of my true believerism is that (1) I made an insulting joke about JARS, (2) I defended ARI when it was being attacked in contradiction to fact and, (3) I called you a liar. Rock solid, I suppose. But in a certain sense, I guess I am a true believer. I truly believe that you are out of your mind. I doubt much could shake me from that.

I had forgotten I promised a third party I wouldn't bring up your P.S. issue, so I'll drop it for now.

The way I would put it, Chris, is that Kant is such a horrible bastard it's hardly necessary to misquote him to find plenty of opportunities to let him hang himself with his own words.

If this is the more accurate and accepted translation these days and if you think this is preferable, the Kantians are welcome to it:

"Kant accepted without reservation that “God, freedom and immortality” (1781/7, Bxxx) exist but feared that, if science were relevant to their existence at all, it would provide reasons to doubt that they exist. As he saw it and very fortunately, science cannot touch these questions. “I have found it necessary to deny knowledge, … in order to make room for faith.” (Bxxx, his italics). - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/

Mr. Mazza,

Here's what you actually said about your knowledge of JARS circa October 5, 2005:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-6031

I compared JARS to the National Enquirer because one of the few articles in JARS I know anything about was by Slavoj Zizek, who speculated that some of Rand's heros, e.g. Dagny and Galt, were effectively lesbian couples.

In your retelling, "one of the few" articles that you "knew anything about" has shrunk to one article that your "knowledge was limited to": Zizek's.

I said you'd condemned the journal without reading from it.

You've essentially admitted that you hadn't read anything.  If you'd actually read Zizek's piece (or anybody else's), I figured you would have said so.  But I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that.  I can see now that I shouldn't have.

What's more, if your National Enquirer reference on October 5 was just a joke, and not a condemnation, what is this (from your blog entry of October 8, 2005)?:

(1) The National Review is a destructive magazine. It actively attacks Objectivism and Ayn Rand, and it actively promotes the religious right. There have been valuable articles written in the National Review, yet somehow I don’t think calling NR a destructive force while conceding that it publishes the occasional insightful piece is a contradiction or problem. I wouldn’t be shocked if there have been some quality articles published in JARS. But that, in and of itself, doesn’t make JARS a worthwhile publication, and it doesn’t change the fact that, as a whole, JARS is a damaging force in Rand scholarship.

See http://passingthoughts.blogsome.com/2005/10/08/blog-wars/

Not a condemnation?  Really?

I'm sure most readers here know precisely what Ayn Rand thought of the National Review.

Robert Campbell

PS. We've been over another issue as well, back in the SOLOHQ days.  One last try on that one, too.

I seriously doubt that (a) you know every ARI scholar.  If you actually do know them all, I entirely doubt (b) that you know each of these folks so well that they would tell you about something like wanting to publish in JARS but being afraid of the possible reaction at ARI.

What's more, given your expressed attitudes, they'd have to be complete fools to tell you something like that.  Wouldn't your first impulse be to get them punished, for wanting to collaborate with a "destructive force"?

Jeff, The questions you raise -- accurate capture of the history of philosophy by oists -- are of more interest to me (and I hope some others) than the personal attack or personal credibility ones, so with my Godlike Powers, I'm going to create ***a new thread*** right now...

...I hope you will elaborate on your critique and that Neil and Fred and others will move the topic just opened over there...

You wrote:

"But, lending weight to LP, his view of Kant and of his influence seems to be commonly found in philosophy texts or reference works, so if it's wrong one would have to explain how that happened and where the wrong turn was and why the conventional scholarly interpretations are able to get Aristotle and Plato and Hume and Descartes and so on right, but not Manny the K."

Did I say that conventional scholarly interpretations get Aristotle, Plato, Hume, and Descartes right?

You wrote further:

"Kant originated German Idealism. His version was called Transcendental Idealism. 'Transcendental idealism denies that we could have knowledge of the thing in itself.' And if Kant denies we can get to reality, what could be more destructive to future philosophers who accept it than that?"

Denying that we can "have knowledge of the thing in itself" is NOT the same thing as denying that "we can get to reality." Right there is the main locus of the absurd Objectivist oversimplification of Kant.

To say more would be, I fear, to hijack this thread. So I shall hold my peace on this subject forthwith.

JR

Fred Weiss on Wed, 2006-04-19 15:29:
But let's not forget that it was Kant who famously declared that he felt obliged "to deny reason in order to make room for faith".

Horrible bastard as Kant may be, isn't it important to quote him accurately about what he had found necessary to deny in order to make room for faith, so that we be sure that we have his nail squarely hit?

Hi Jeff. I haven't read much Kant (a bit of CPR - after which I needed CPR - but that was decades ago) so I don't know directly if Peikoff perfectly essentializes or oversimplifies Kant's *actual philosophy* (as opposed to looking into his soul and declaring him evil in his motivations, or as opposed to his degree of internal consistency).

But, lending weight to LP, his view of Kant and of his influence seems to be the one commonly found in philosophy texts or reference works, so if it's wrong one would have to explain how that happened and where the wrong turn was and why the conventional scholarly interpretations are able to get Aristotle and Plato and Hume and Descartes and so on right, but not Manny the K:

Kant originated German Idealism. His version was called Transcendental Idealism. "Transcendental idealism denies that we could have knowledge of the thing in itself." And if Kant denies we can get to reality, what could be more destructive to future philosophers who accept it than that?

The whole idea of German Idealism and Kant's "Copernican Revolution" is a big thing in the literature and a staple of college philosohy surveys. Is that the aspect that you think is oversimplified?

Phil

PS, Jeff, if the word essentialize makes you shudder, I'm just going to have to keep whispering it gently to you till your aversion reaction phobia is broken and cured ...essentialize, essentialize, essentialize, essentialize, essentialize, essentialize, essentialize, essentialize .... Is it working yet??

"On page 41 he says Luther is "anti-reason." Luther's statements about reason shoud be seen in the context with Rome, in which he considered Scholasticism overly rationalistic. He also had a peasant's sense of exaggeration as well."

Ugh. What survey of intellectual history were you trying to paraphrase? Luther's contempt for reason (as a means for knowing God and the physical universe - i.e., metaphysical and scientific knowledge) goes well beyond the general anti-scholasticist trend. Rome? You mean Paris. His break with Rome was over their rationalism??

If you think his stance on reason vs. faith was merely one instance of his scatalogical overstatement then you simply haven't read him. Period.

I would take things like loyalty oaths (intentionally worded tongue-in-cheek or not) to be a sign of TB -- that it's something that a TB would do. (Lay it out syllogistically; that a TB would do it doesn't imply that anyone who does it TB.) Whether it's good evidence of TB or not, though . . . well, I'd be interested in seeing the arguments.

Before gettting to the latest series of new postings, this is right at the top of my mind right now. Of all the things I managed to remember from internet discussion over the years, it was Robert Campbell's anecdote from the early '70s. Originally it was on the MDOP, I believe (are web archives of this list available?), at the time that it was moderated by Jimbo Wales before turning moderatorship over to Bryan Register. Anyhew, it had to do with Campbell's campus Objectivism club trying to gain official endorsement or support from Peikoff. But a problem arose; here's the closest similar version of the anecdote from Robert himself a couple years back on NoodleFood:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/comments/view.pl?entry=108259178750051950#36

Well, back in 1972, when I was on the staff of an Objectivist-leaning student newspaper called Ergo, the editor of that newspaper had a series of phone conversations with Leonard Peikoff. Ergo, you see, had put *The Psychology of Self-Esteem* on a list of recommended reading, which ran in its first issue of the fall semester. And Peikoff was extremely unhappy with the recommendation. He and the editor (a fellow named Erich Veyhl, in case you want to check the story) went round and round: Why is it so bad to read a book by Branden? What makes it worse to buy and read such a book than buying and reading a book by Karl Marx (published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, so the Soviet regime takes a cut of the royalties)? And on and on. Ultimately, Peikoff's response was, "Because Nathaniel Branden has hurt Ayn Rand."

(from the comments section for this blog entry)

I'm suspecting that there may be more to it than told here. But let's take from this Robert's own distinct impression: that Peikoff was adhering to a policy concerning some Index of Prohibited Books. And that Branden's books were on the list because he had hurt Ayn Rand. Now, it would have been different had Ergo invited Branden to speak to the group. This, however, was giving his book a mention on a recommended list of readings. Here there seems to be something of a tension: how could someone who has so badly hurt Rand at once also be given a bibliographical recommendation? Why put his name out there in positive light?

Take the particulars of Robert's incident out, and you have what I think may well distinguish a True-Believer (TB) mentality from non-TB. From what I know, the Branden book in question consists almost entirely of material that was already published in The Objectivist anyway. So what it seems to me is that a reaction to the book that consists actually of a reaction to the person of Branden is a sign of TB; it's not a reaction to the merits of the ideas presented therein. Branden's a really bad guy, and that's enough to take his name off a list of recommended readings.

Now I don't know about anyone else here, but I definitely do take issue with such a mentality and behavior wherever it exists. As much as it may irk someone to see Branden's name mentioned in connection with Objectivism, it's not grounds to want his writings stripped from the record, as it were, of books worth reading.

Now, Robert himself admits to having been TB early on, I presume when he and his campus group were on good terms with Peikoff. And he garnered something from this experience as it relates to what he sees in TB-hood. But let me also suggest a possibility: that Robert has become so sensitized to TB-hood based on his past experience with it that he could be excessively inclined towards "spotting" it here and there. In rightly being wary of its dangers and wanting to root it out, one could ("psycho-epistemologically"?) be inclined to regard signs of TB-hood (i.e., "this is something that a TB would say/do) as good evidence of it.

This may account for what Robert's critics here find objectionable in his painting some folks as TB.

"Oversimplying" is an example of not essentializing.

It means focusing on certain characteristics while ignoring others of equal or greater importance.

So, for example, your comment oversimplifies the Objectivist position on essentializing. Another is Neil telling us that Kant supported American independence, as if that somehow offsets his far more profoundly important positions in epistemology and ethics - or as if Objectivism maintains that anything and everything Kant ever said was mistaken or evil.

Do you really not know what essential/essentializing means? I truly don't know how seriously to take your comment.

And let's keep in mind, ARI doesn't NEED to publish in JARS. They are an INSTITUTE of Ayn Rand studies. Outsiders who don't agree with ARI, or don't get the sanction of ARI, NEED JARS more than ARI.
JARS wants to be non-partisan, and committed to explorations of Rand's ideas in a non-orthodox manner, and honest about its welcoming of critical writers. Fine. They've done it. But don't expect the orthodoxy to participate in its own destruction.

Rowlf, I "hath wrought " nothing. If someone chooses to go off on a tangents, that's on them. Personally, I don't mind because I've said my peace on the matter. But, if you haven't, and really want to hear more on JARS matters...

"Siabarra,

I would like to point out that Prof. Campbell used information which he obtained in his capacity as associate editor, which I did not intend to be public, in order to smear me in a post which was 75% fabricated, as even he admitted. I had no contact or public exchange with Prof. Campbell for over a year prior to that post, which was totally unprovoked and uncalled for. If a contributor gets slammed in public for withdrawing a draft which did not go through the editorial process, with the false claim that it was "ready for publication," one has to wonder about Prof. Campbell's tactics. Why portray someone who already published in JARS in such a negative light?

The SoloPassion references:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/342#comment-5435
http://www.solopassion.com/node/342#comment-5486
http://www.solopassion.com/node/342#comment-5522

To which Chris responded:

"Robert Campbell's recollections of your reasons for withdrawing your article from JARS were incorrect. In fact, to my knowledge, he only knew you withdrew your piece, but I don't recall discussing the private dialogue that you and I had about it. Robert is not even the designated co-editor on the Nietzsche-Rand project. My co-editor for that project is Lester Hunt.

In any event, I'm happy to see that Robert set the record straight."

Now, Kudos to Chris for acknowledging the error, and to Robert for "setting the record straight," but tell me again WHY are ARI scholars supposed to be enthusiatic about JARS?

"What is sorely lacking both in your comments and in Gordon's review is an ability to deal with the essentials of either Kantianism or the arguments in Peikoff's book."

I sometimes wonder: when Objectivists talk about "dealing with the essentials" (or, as Phil Coates puts it [shudder], "essentializing"), do they really mean what the rest of us mean when we use the word "oversimplify"?

It has long seemed to me that what Objectivists are really talking about when they speak or write of "dealing with the essentials of Kantianism" is oversimplifying Kant until they've got a formulation they can easily and unequivocally knock down.

JR

This is tedious because you continually accuse me of doing someting I didn't.

"You've asserted that you'd read one or more articles in JARS before you made this statement."

No, I haven't. If you think I did, where did I say it? As I've said numerous times, I made a joke about the one article I knew about. If I wanted to condemn JARS, I would propbably write, "I condemn JARS for reasons x, y, and z." My little comment about being brave was in response to your assertion that there are ARI scholars being intimidated about publishing in JARS. This is in fact not happening.

I've said more than once that at the time I wrote the post my knowledge of JARS was limited to the Zizek article. This is my total opinion of JARS: "It is edited by a guy who continually tries to manipulate what I've said, and it published a trashy article about AR." I really have no desire to pursue it further, which is why I'm not using my time to publish criticism of JARS articles.

So here is my question to you. Do you actually care what I did and did not say? Or are you just content in continually accusing me of saying something I clearly did not say?

By way of evidence of "tons of mistakes" in Leonard Peikoff's "Ominous Parallels", Neil Parille cites what he regards as the following omissions.

That Kant was "a secularist" whose writings were regarded as irreligious by many people in his day. The latter is true but that hardly makes him a secularist. His contemporaries merely objected to *the way* in which he argued for the existence of God, i.e. his rejection of the rationalist arguments. But let's not forget that it was Kant who famously declared that he felt obliged "to deny reason in order to make room for faith".

That Kant supported American independence. Well, so did many, if not most, thinkers of his day. More importantly, Kant's political philosophy was of relatively minor influence in comparison to his epistemology and ethics - which influence was undeniably profound and of course where most of the damage was done.

That Peikoff does not put Luther's "anti-reason" comments in context. I suppose he also doesn't put Luther's virulent anti-semitism in context either.

That he doesn't mention that Ernst Cassirer was a Jew and an anti-Nazi. How exactly does that offset his Kantianism? The relevant point about Cassirer was that he was notably a founder of the so-called Marburg School of neo-Kantianism.

As for David Gordon's critique which is supposed to address the supposed "mistakes" in "Ominous Parallels", it is clearly a "Seddon-ite" interpretation of Kant. It is one thing to give a thinker the benefit of the doubt and offer the most generous intepretation of his views even when they seem false. That is not necessarily inappropriate. It is quite another however to attempt to sanitize them which is what Gordon does - and which is Fred Seddon's stock in trade - in regard to Kant.

What is sorely lacking both in your comments and in Gordon's review is an ability to deal with the essentials of either Kantianism or the arguments in Peikoff's book.

Chris,

I was the one who brought up epistemic perfection.

If you want a concrete case of what I'm talking about, see my blog entry, right here at SOLOP, titled "Is This What They Teach at the Ayn Rand Institute?"  I examine Don Watkins' reply to Neil Parille's SOLOHQ essay on Rand and evolution.  Mr. Watkins' responses, in my opinion, constitute an appeal to Rand's epistemic perfection.  He appears to be saying that if Ayn Rand was uncomfortable with the topic of biological evolution, her working methods were not what she said they were, and she would have had to be dishonest, irrational, and emotionalistic.

Neither Mr. Parille's original essay nor Mr. Watkins' response is very long, so it shouldn't require a great deal of labor to make your judgment of them.

Robert Campbell

Mr. Mazza,

This has gone past tedious, but I'll try one more time.

Your blog Passing Thoughts, for October 5, 2005, can be seen here:

http://passingthoughts.blogsome.com/2005/10/05/63/

In it, you made the following gibe about the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies:

Who oh who will have the courage to publish an article in the National Enquirer of Rand scholarship? I sure wish I had the poor judgment to be that brave

You've asserted that you'd read one or more articles in JARS before you made this statement.

But you haven't said which ones.  Surely you'd remember.

The only one you've mentioned here on SOLOP is Slavoj Zizek's article--and you said you "knew about" it.  We all know about articles that we didn't read, but someone else told us about.

If you can't identify the articles you read before October 5, 2005, why should your audience not conclude that you condemned JARS before reading?

You've already had multiple opportunities to say which articles you read, and to critique them.

Robert Campbell

PS. You've said that the professor who yelled at your friend (when he proposed an independent study of Rand's epistemology) eventually had the grace to admit that he hadn't read ITOE.  Do the same standards apply in your own case?

Mr. Ceeley,

What I meant to say was "Ominous Parallels has tons of mistakes and ommissions." In other words, if you combine the mistakes and the stuff Peikoff should tell you but doesn't, you get a book that I think is unreliable.

On the mistakes:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon13.html

On the ommissions, let me give a few:

In his discussion of Kant, he never tells you that Kant was a secularist who got in trouble because his writings were seen as irreligous. In addition, he was (at least according to books I've read) a supporter of US independence.

On page 41 he says Luther is "anti-reason." Luther's statements about reason shoud be seen in the context with Rome, in which he considered Scholasticism overly rationalistic. He also had a peasant's sense of exaggeration as well.

On page 209-210 he makes a snide attack on Cassirer (a "top neo-Kantian") by arguing that Weimar Republic made some horrible mistake by naming him to the chair of philosophy at the University of Hamburg. Peikoff doesn't mention that Cassirer was Jewish & anti-Nazi. In addition, when he heard the Nazis say "Justice is what the Fuehrer says it is," Cassirer said "there is no hope for Germany then" and fled to the US.

~~ Apart from the arguments "Check these links. Here's where *I* prove that *they* are wrong in what *I*'m being accused of as being a (b)randroid/lier/Rand-Worshipper/Rand-Hater [pick one]", what discussion here is there about the content-worth (or lack thereof) of JARS (well, other than its' cool lesbian pics)?

~~ JoeM: What hath thou wrought?

~~ Will someone please 'hijack' this thread (or at least get it back to the subject)?

LLAP
J:D

"No good (great?) American movie has been made since the 1930's", "The last great? good? President was Jefferson", "philosophy departments are entirely @#$%^&*(*^$%!!"....The statements aren't absolutely, no exceptions at all true. [Landon]

That's the whole point. He was making them as absolute statements. No qualification. No context. And as if he had surveyed the whole field in each case.

(On the Jefferson one it makes a significant difference if he said good or great and the reason I put question marks is I don't remember.)

I won't hihack the thread with a full conversation on the merits of said movies, my point is that even well-done movies nowadays are missing a certain something. For more on this, read Linz's recent post on the ROMANTIC MANIFESTO thread, and if you STILL feel that Binswanger's an idiot, then at least we know where we stand.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/813

As a momentary diversion from the main topic of who-called-who-what, I did get up on the web a draft of a paper accessible in PDF or HTML form from
http://www.geocities.com/cathcacr/philosophy.html
(third item down), that comments on Mack's article, in section IVb, which starts on p. 6 of the PDF. I have to say that I'm not satisfied with my response at this point, namely because I just downplay as a stylistic issue what is actually an issue of substance, if the specific letter of the arguments in the literature is essential to the substance of the official Objectivist position.

(Actually at present, I've just started into writing up the notes for an article that I think will prove to be more satisfactory, and it's something that has been quite long in the waiting in the arena of Rand/Objectivism dialogue: a direct response to a pretty compelling-looking argument that Mack (and to a much lesser and rather inconsequential extent, the Dougs) has been making for years that deontological reasoning is crucial to grounding individual rights. I'm sort of surprised that critical engagement with his main thesis has been neglected by so many for so long, but part of the problem has been (a) the arguments have been so compelling and meritorious in so many other ways, and (b) I'm not really sure who all has come to adequately understand the basis for his appeals to deontology (and as such the specific and perhaps subtle ways in which his deontological arguments depart from Objectivist method) and thereby critique his argument on his grounds. With perhaps only small refinements, I'm in basic agreement with the Dougs' position, and whatever the flaws in Mack's approach, he still has some very important things to say worth paying attention to.)

Neil wrote:

"I haven't listened to Peikoff's tapes on the history of philosophy, but I'm not impressed by Ominous Parallels (which has tons of mistakes)."

Big claims require big support -- and a ton is pretty big. Now, I'm just a humble, lovable defense contractor, and therefore I have no idea how many mistakes there are to a "ton" -- but in a book of fewer than 400 pages, those mistakes should be all over the place, and all over most every page. So grabbing, say, fifty mistakes shouldn't pose a significant problem, right? Or am I missing something?

So let's have them. Fifty. Any order. Any precedence. Any subject.

Any takers?

After all, the book "has tons of mistakes."

Would that be a metric ton? Judges?

Come now, that's one of the most subtly funny lines in the whole movie! Whatever you call it, irony or absurdity or what have you, the very idea of even bringing-up hero-hood in the same breath as a discussion about the Dude is, well, so juxtaposed as to be silly.

The appeal of the Godfather? Well, we could start with amazing script, acting, editing, photography, memorableness. Then there's a the moral dimension, Michael Corleone being the center of the whole saga as moral subject. Message: "This is what happens when this is the life you choose." Crappy as Part III may be as a movie, it's the end of the saga and Michael's a miserable wreck.

Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is another film of much the same caliber of greatness, and across many similar criteria.

Someone mentioned (real or imagined) appeals to Rand's epistemic perfection if not moral perfection. I assume that means the view that Rand got everything right concerning matters of doctrine. I wouldn't think of it in such terms; I would think instead in terms of the consistent rigor and intellect that she brought to bear on all the issues (which some would have a hard time accepting given her very essentialized arguments in print which don't lay out all the finer points indepth with the kind of formalized rigor of an academic). But Rand more than anyone would have welcomed reasoned and informed challenges to her doctrines; in that context there wouldn't be anything wrong with saying that she had gotten to the truth without infallibility; everyone (okay, most folks) who think about ideas indepth would certainly like to think that they have gotten things right. Do I think Rand got everything right? Probably not, but things she may have slipped up on are relatively minor in comparison to her achievement. She was fundamentally right in much the same way that Aristotle's worldview was a fundamentally healthy one despite his errors.

I never understood the appeal of the Godfather. Very well done, but not one I'd watch twice. Coen Brothers are not great (The line from the Big Lebowski, "what's a hero, anyway?" earns my deepest scorn.

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2006-04-19 01:06.
If Binswanger really said, "No good (great?) American movie has been made since the 1930's", "The last great? good? President was Jefferson", "philosophy departments are entirely @#$%^&*(*^$%!!" I hereby elevate him from "jerk" status to sainthood!

1. Not all philosophy dept's are entirely %$##^*^^^%. (I know, I misquoted the symbols. Sue me. ) I hear that UT Austin ain't so bad. I was part of a dept. that wasn't so bad, though I could tell you the story -- wait, the fact of several major faculty dept. members leaving the dept. in a short period of time should be a matter of public record -- of how the dept. went into very rapid, drastic decline, in great part due to wonderful politics (in both senses).

2. Binswanger may be compartmentalized here -- a bright guy everywhere else, but an idiot on movies. The Godfather movies are great whatever else you might say about them. I guess all but Kubrick's earlier movies don't qualify, having been made in the U.K. But you've still got Scorsese films, a certain Coen bros. film, Team America of course, and a large number of other movies I could mention if anyone cares....

3. Okay, the last great President was Jefferson.

So far I'm reading Valliant to the effect that evidence of Ayn Rand's moral flaws has yet to be adduced, not that she was perfect. I think Casey published something on this site (Passion) to the effect that she was morally perfect a while back, but the memory is vague and it is much too hard to access old posts on Passion for me to go looking for it.

Growing up we are exposed to lies and we lie. We feel envy and thus learn about it. Hate, anger, you name it. There is no original sin, but we all acquire sin to different extents, and shuck it off, to different extents. Then, of course, there are levels of honesty. We can be completely honest on the obvious if not superficial level and oblivious to what is going on it the basement.

You've written a lot of good things here on Passion recently, but essentially your most hard-pressed arguments are to the man--that is, showing up Valliant as a way of dealing with PARC. I suppose all is fair in war. That's what Valliant did to the Brandens, afterall.

After the dust settles, however, in a way the Brandens' general depictions of AR will continue to be accepted as valid as they are and will be essentially verified by context and lack of enough contrary information from other first-hand sources. Valliant's weakness is illustrated by his attempt to make Frank O'Connor into something he was not apropos the affair. That AR's husband might have reacted in the way claimed by Valliant as a strong possibility is simply unreal unless the man's frame of reference was the world of "Atlas Shrugged" instead of the world outside his door and in his heart as opposed to an overly intellectualized view of existence. If he had actually been an Ayn Rand type genius then, maybe. But then an affair? Why would AR have had a felt need for it?

James Valliant has nothing to tell us about Ayn Rand that is not either hearsay or in the public record or deduced from that record. Nothing, nothing, nothing. Furthermore, he has little realization of the pawn part he has been playing, in my opinion--I can't prove this--in the war between Leonard Peikoff and the Brandens.

If Binswanger really said, "No good (great?) American movie has been made since the 1930's", "The last great? good? President was Jefferson", "philosophy departments are entirely @#$%^&*(*^$%!!" I hereby elevate him from "jerk" status to sainthood!

... in recent weeks is that the use of the term "Randroid" has become an Argument from Intimidation in the hands of Brandroids, that peculiar species bereft of moral sensibility who can tolerate & actively perpetrate ANYTHING so long as it isn't moral judgement spoken in anger. Such entities are crap friends & lousy philosophers. It's as well they've at least renounced the term "Objectivist" to describe themselves, just as they long since implicitly disavowed the philosophy.

As I said in an earlier post, Randroids are a problem; Brandroids are a disease.

Linz

My reasons for calling Mr. Mazza a Randroid were (1) his public condemnation of JARS, in October 2005, without having read a single article in it

And in fact no such condemnation took place. And I suppose my defense of the OAC against Bill Nevin's comments and Will Thomas's outright smears constitute a reflexive defense of every action ever taken by ARI leadership. And I suppose the fact that what I responded to actualyl were innacurate. Any defense of ARI is, according to Campbell, evidence of true believerism. So, Chris, I hope maybe it is more clear now why few friends of ARI want anything to do with Campbell.

Mr. Simovici and Mr. Cathcart,

If you want links to all of Mr. Valliant's posts to SOLOHQ, see

http://rebirthofreason.com/Users/1019.shtml

If you want links to all of mine, see

http://rebirthofreason.com/Users/73.shtml

I will repeat, since some participants here don't know the fall 2005 SOLOHQ discussions, that Mr. Valliant has made claims concerning Ayn Rand's character that go beyond anything that he says in his book and that pertain to evidence provided by persons other than Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.

Robert Campbell

PS. My reasons for calling Mr. Mazza a Randroid were (1) his public condemnation of JARS, in October 2005, without having read a single article in it; and (2) his reflexive defense of every questionable action taken by the leadership of ARI (on his blog he has referred to Ayn Rand/ARI/Objectivism as though they are all the same thing).  I might add that where Ms. Hsieh denied recalling a particular statement to me in a telephone conversation, Mr. Mazza went further and appeared to deny that the conversation had ever taken place (as though he would be in any position to know).

"No good (great?) American movie has been made since the 1930's", "The last great? good? President was Jefferson", "philosophy departments are entirely @#$%^&*(*^$%!!"

As to each of those statements I don't normally think in those terms... but:

Whenever I view a Fritz Lang film, or something from a similar period and quality, I'm literally brought to tears the moment I turn my vcr/dvd player off and see something on standard television. And I guarentee anything anyone would consider "Great" from after that time period would be up for serious debate among anyone.

As to the president question... After Jefferson, honestly try to name someone up to that quality. Lincoln, good but had his flaws. Same for Reagan. And most of the ones who earn distinction as the worst are all from that time period.

I've never taken a college level philosophy course, but as evidence I'll present the obsession with mental masturbation I've seen from most anyone who has.

The statements aren't absolutely, no exceptions at all true. They are however pretty on the mark.

---Landon

It all basically comes back to fight or flight.

Chris Cathcart,

Thank you for that.

While I have not been a subscriber to JARS "since its inception," I have been since before PARC. It was due to a subscription issue that I first came into contact with Chris Sciabarra. And I did know about Andrew Bernstein's position (and others') – and I still intended to publish in JARS a response to the review of PARC Chris Sciabarra is planning.

Before I posted any criticism of Campbell's insults against me and ARI scholars, and within the last two weeks, I raised my concerns about this in private correspodence with Chris Sciabarra. Since that time, I have raised additional concerns – by emailing him again with a longer and more detailed explanation last Monday. We spoke on the phone that same day, when I again raised these concerns in still stronger terms.

On April 12, he emailed me to "wait" until he had written something he said he had hoped to post at Notablog about this, "before [I] decid[ed] anything." There has been no such response. To be fair, neither of us had hopes that such a response would "fully satisfy [my] concerns," as Chris Sciabarra put it.

I want it known, on the record, that I am not afraid to publish in JARS, and never have been – as C.S. also knows. My willingness to engage him at Notablog is further proof of this. Moreover, those of my friends who are affiliated with ARI have repeatedly assured me that my friendship with them is in no jeopardy if I were to publish in JARS.

As I told C.S., this is part of a vicious myth, the continued promulgation of which can only continue to alienate ARI scholars from JARS.

See:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/342

I don't mean to argue against the majority of your post, Chris, since I think it was eminently reasonable on the whole. But you brought into the open an assumption that has lurked throughout much of this discussion, one I find baffling: the idea that merely to abstain from discussion or debate, apparently no matter what the context, makes one a true-believer (or any such epithet). Whether or not James Valiant is a true-believer has nothing to do with his subscription to JARS - he is patently a patient and reasonable man, which all the more underscores the bizzare nature of the accusation that he "promotes" the ARI blah blah or true believer blah blah.

There is at least one good reason, probably the real one, someone at ARI won't want to respond or deal with Sciabarra or JARS: they prefer not to lend further credibility and publicity (however minor) to a publication or cause they view as harmful to ARI's overall cultural mission. If they're wrong about JARS, so be it - but the point is their policy would then flow from their reasoned evaluation, not a paranoid tendency to ignore reality. There are probably others that view some of their opponents as beneath them, too unimportant. But arrogance, if you that's what you'd call it, doesn't amount to "true-believer"-hood. (As an aside: refusing to engage a person or a publication, while part of a moral calculus, doesn't necessarily mean they have branded that person immoral. I haven't heard anyone condemn Sciabarra morally, even if they think he's gravely mistaken (and unworthy of support, however indirect). Ridpath is the exception.)

The evidence on this and other threads has partially borne out this attitude.

Robert implies that to dismiss the Brandens' important claims against Rand (as opposed to, say, the claim that she was unjustifiably angry on more than one ocassion - you won't find many who disagree with that), *even on the grounds which Valiant painstakingly establishes in his book*, is an appeal to Ayn Rand's moral perfection. Or: to use *evidence* of her general method, in absence of any crucial evidence to the contrary, as grounds upon which to dismiss speculations on what her motives might have been in believing something or other about evolution - well, that's clearly an appeal to Ayn Rand's epistemic perfection. At the very least, Robert has taken the most uncharitable possible interpretation of everything he's cited.

The "true-believer" charge certainly applies to some, and I've met those on the ARI side of things who qualify. For the most part, however, I haven't seen anything of the oppressive atmosphere or closed-mindedness I was assured existed in spades - *especially* not from the intellectuals.

Robert, let me bring up one point: I think you and I would agree that the true "true believer" mentality would have a mighty specific view about JARS: to have nothing to do with it in any way, shape, or form. And, indeed, that does appear to be the very widely held position amongst the ARI people. (Note that we're still only cross-classifying.) True believers would already have been amongst those boycotting JARS before any leadership figure like Andrew Bernstein openly called for one.

But James V. has actually been a subscriber to JARS, since its inception, I believe. That, to me, is a strong indication that he isn't part of a true-believer mentality.

James has published a book severely critical of the Brandens, but it doesn't take a true believer to have such a critical viewpoint (of Dr. Branden in particular); you had such IOS/TOC figures as Dr. Blumenthal (whether he's a true believer or not despite his personal falling-out with Rand I don't know, but he's not ARI-affiliated, either) leaving the organization when it brought Dr. Branden onto the team.

Let me put this one out, as a personal viewpoint: Was Ayn Rand "perfect"? No. Was she of such moral character that one could rightly accuse her of "moral failings"? No. Whatever her "failings," they weren't moral ones. I don't really know what the "perfection" talk is all supposed to mean, but morally speaking, I believe Rnad to have been a scrupulously good person. That aside, whatever her personal foibles were (we all have foibles, do we not? okay, I'm an exception), what does the "true believer" position amount to? That she was still perfect? That she never made a mistake? That she's beyond criticism? Maybe there isn't a problem with saying that, properly understood, moral perfection is possible to human beings, and that Ayn Rand was such an example. True-believerhood might be ascribing such perfection in an intrinsicist fashion, not properly understanding the meaning of moral perfection. In any case, I think it enough to say that she was a prime-example embodiment of the virtues she preached.

Needless to say, I don't consider myself a true believer for holding that viewpoint.

(Note: Not being much of a book-reader right now, I have not yet read PARC.)

Chris,

Click my user name and then find the "track" button. That shows my posts on the forum.

Submitted by Mike Mazza on Tue, 2006-04-18 16:21.
Keep in mind that Campbell thinks I am a true believer because... I called him a liar when he was telling lies! Like he said, check the archives to see.

Being quite new to SOLO, I'm unfamiliar with the way the archives are accessed on this site if I'm searching for a specific discussion. I'd appreciate some pointers.

Submitted by Casey Fahy on Tue, 2006-04-18 06:33.

I don't know anyone after 43 years on this planet who is more accommodating to other points of view than James Valliant. Seriously. But when he is repeatedly branded with some sort of ad hominem brush for idealizing Ayn Rand or something when he gives honest reasons for doubting specific charges, what the heck is he supposed to do other than what he's done?

Well now I see that Robert has specifically made -- apparently standing by some comment or other he made before -- a claim as follows, directed towards Jim:

"I did not initially interpret your book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics as promoting a true believer agenda, but after lengthy discussions with you, both of matters raised in your book, and of matters not raised there, I've concluded that it does."

Here I have to admit having come probably much too late to the discussion. Sounds like the "lengthy discussions" in question happened some time ago. If someone could let me know the specific archived thread(s) where I could access these discussions, that would be helpful. I have to say, I'm left wondering whether "PARC promotes a true believer agenda" is meant as a way of saying that "James Valliant is a true believer." I wonder if this is the kind of thing that characterizes the whole history of the discussion -- claims of the former sort taken by some (with good reason) to be fill-ins for claims like the latter, and just escalating from that point on to the kind of less-than-productive exchanges I've been seeing as of late.

What I see at this point are exchanges that I find frustrating for the reasons I've mentioned. What exactly did Jim say in those previous exchanges that led to Robert's conclusion that his book promotes a true-believer agenda? I'm asking here (for a clarification from Robert or a reference to the specific archived discussions), not pointing fingers at either person.

For all I know, there are true believers out there who might like to use PARC as part of their crusade -- but I don't know in what way that's supposed to reflect on Jim himself, who would speak only for himself as he has in these discussions.

Jim aside, Robert has some point about a significant tendency or encouragement in the direction of true-believerhood that he sees in ARI policies and practices. One of them, to be pretty concrete about it, is the status accorded to non-ARI philosophers and publications. Someone just mentioned, as I had a few days ago, Mack's "On Problematic Arguments" article in JARS, to name one example. So far, a good two years has gone by since its appearance, and so far as I know, there's been no attention paid it by the ARI group.

Now, I don't know if this is evidence of "true-believership" specifically, but it's a disappointing phenomenon nonetheless. (The case of this article is hardly isolated.)

And as evidence that Jim is not part of that disappointing trend, he's said right here that a discussion on this article would be a swell idea.

It would be interesting, as a separate topic, to see a discussion on why this disappointing tendency exists. That's probably what Robert is pushing for, but it looks like one of those points that's gotten drowned out by the other stuff.

> Even with Kant, you have to give perspective. He wanted to support Newtownian physics, he believed in limited government, he was a secularist, he was interested in science, etc.

Neil, I think it depends on what the context of the issue or discussion is. For example, if you are trying to compress the history of western philosophy into twelve (or even twenty-four) lectures, you don't have time to list the contradictory statements or inconsistencies of Kant or Aristotle or every single philosopher: Your purpose is to make the broad outlines of the story and its twists and turns clear which are complicated enough as it is. You just deal with the main anti-realist thrust of Kant and how his central ideas or arguments have been taken up and used by the succeeding philosophical tradition.

On the other hand, if you are trying to decide if he is evil as a person (as opposed to, say, his ideas having evil or enormously destructive effects) or are otherwise engaged in a detailed study of Kant, you are required to consider *everything* we know about him...including the contextual points you mentioned.

Keep in mind that Campbell thinks I am a true believer because... I called him a liar when he was telling lies! Like he said, check the archives to see.

Your friendly neighborhood Randroid,
Mike

Mr. Valliant,

For the record, here's what I think about true believers.

One need not be affiliated with ARI to be a true believer.  I was one once, before ARI existed.  I've met up with true believers in the TOC orbit as well as true believers who don't want to be involved with any organization.

The senior leadership of ARI--I have in mind, in particular, Drs. Peikoff and Binswanger--are, in my opinion, true believers.  I do not conclude from this that they are ignorant of Objectivism, or that no one should pay attention to what they say.  Quite the contrary.  But their views concerning Ayn Rand's character, or concerning scholarship done outside their organization, even about such matters as the arbitrary, indicate to me that they are true believers.

I do not think that all ARI affiliated scholars are true believers.  Rather, I suspect there is quite a mix of attitudes over there.  I can't know for sure, however, because as ARI is presently constituted, it encourages true believing, and discourages public criticisms of true believing.  So far as I can determine, such junior ARIans as Mike Mazza or Don Watkins believe that their own true believing enjoys the blessing of senior figures at ARI.

I did not initially interpret your book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics as promoting a true believer agenda, but after lengthy discussions with you, both of matters raised in your book, and of matters not raised there, I've concluded that it does.  Like my judgments of Drs. Peikoff and Binswanger, or of Messrs. Mazza and Watkins, this is my personal view.  Many do not agree with it.  Chris Sciabarra does not agree with it.

What's great about well-maintained, publically accessible message board archives is that anyone who is interested can review all of the exchanges on SOLOHQ, as well as the more recent ones here on SOLOP, and decide for himself or herself.  No need to rely on triumphalistic bloviations from me, from your friend Mr. Fahy, or anyone else.  In fact, I would not be inclined to trust anyone who simply took my word for it--as I hope Mr. Fahy wouldn't be inclined to trust anyone who merely took his word for it.

Frankly, I think you made your mind up about the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies some weeks ago, before any of that "bile" got poured out.  Be that as it may, why lengthen the dramatic pause?

If you want to submit something to JARS, say so.

If you don't want to, say so.

Either way, life will go on.

Either way, people inside ARI and people outside ARI will continue to write about Ayn Rand and her ideas.

Robert Campbell

PS. I don't understand why you hold Dr. Sciabarra responsible for everything I say, when you've followed a consistent policy of not commenting when asked about anything that Mr. Fahy says.

Neil,

Your topics sound swell, but I am not responsible for any of the alleged bile you mention.

And, I am sure that ARI-affliated scholars will understand that only SOME of them are meant to be targets of Campbell's slam.

Sorry, but JARS itself IS responsible for the bile its own editors vomit on me and all ARI-affiliated writers – Campbell's comments, for example.

JARS is in no position to complain about "bile" under such circumstances.

Chris,

Prof. Campbell can speak for himself, but I don't see a contradiction between saying that "the ARI has a true believer mentality" and "not all ARI-affiliated scholars have a true believer mentality." Not every ARI-associated scholar will share the precise beliefs of the leadership.

What I find frustrating is that on multiple occasions Prof. Campbell and I have asked Mr. Valliant and others to comment on the bile directed at JARS and Sciabarra by ARIans, or discuss various pieces in JARS (the Mack arti