Good one, Brant. I'll bite, especially since you've dropped back in even though I've been narsty to you: if Rand the man or Rand the non-man had been a parent.

I don't think it woulda disneyfied her one bit. She wouldn'ta been on the cover of Modern Parent, I figger. Howzabout 'there mighta been more kids in Atlas Shrugged'? A new generation raised to perfect O-levels and all.

What if Ayn Rand had been a mother--and a novelist?

--Brant

Almost funny, but too fallacious to have any bite, Chris. This is a forced choice, which exposes the fallacy of the excluded middle. The argument's premises are unsound.

This is not the only fallacy that obtains from my test. As noted above -- in my comments on the previous assertions and statements and obverse comments -- we also see other disjunctive syllogisms, along with argumentum ad baculum and false analogy.

Thinking and writing can be a chore, I know, drawn-out and difficult, but diligence pays off handsomely -- as Rand demonstrated again and again, by her diamond logic and honed prose (I post below a congenial-to-Rand snippet on due diligence from Susan Haack's essay on Preposterism).

WSS

______________

Pseudo-Inquiry; and the Real Thing

A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. This is a tautology (Webster's: "inquiry: search for truth . . ."). A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition( determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth- value of which he is indifferent.

Neither sham nor fake inquiry is really inquiry; but we need to get beyond this tautology to understand what is wrong with sham and fake reasoning. The sham inquirer tries to make a case for the truth of a proposition his commitment to which is already evidence- and argument-proof. The fake inquirer tries to make a case for some proposition advancing which he thinks will enhance his own reputation, but to the truth-value of which he is indifferent. (Such indifference is, as Harry Frankfurt once shrewdly observed, the characteristic attitude of the bullshitter.)(3) Both the sham and the fake inquirer, but especially the sham, are motivated to avoid examining any apparently contrary evidence or argument too closely, to play down its importance or impugn its relevance, to contort themselves explaining it away. And, since people often mistake the impressively obscure for the profound, both, but especially the fake reasoner, are motivated to obfuscate.

The genuine inquirer wants to get to the truth of the matter that concerns him, whether or not that truth comports with what he believed at the outset of his investigation, and whether or not his acknowledgement of that truth is likely to get him tenure, or to make him rich, famous, or popular. So he is motivated to seek out and assess the worth of evidence and arguments thoroughly and impartially. This doesn't just mean that he will be hard-working; it is a matter, rather, of willingness to re-think, to re-appraise, to spend as long as it takes on the detail that might be fatal, to give as much thought to the last one percent as to the rest. The genuine inquirer will be ready to acknowledge, to himself as well as others, where his evidence and arguments seem shakiest, and his articulation of problem or solution vaguest. He will be willing to go with the evidence even to unpopular conclusions, and to welcome someone else's having found the truth he was seeking.

(from "Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism")

If Rand had been a man, he would be a woman-worshipper.

(That, or "unspeakably disgusting"...)

Lindsay would have offered crotch-congress to Mr Rand, given the chance (well, as gorgeously depicted -- who wouldn't?).

James figured only a woman could have forged Objectivism (or Masculinism).

Jason may not have read Atlas Shrugged 'cause some evul feminist called it homoeuroblanco hackery.

The anonymous minstrel "Capitalist"++ figures nobody would have turned a hair about the Affair had it been Mr Rand the man who wrote Anthem.

Ever-departing but never-quite-gone Brant sees Rand as a 50s-era American Psycho, fetching millions by day, slitting tender throats by darkness.

Fred talks about some nameless somebody and the unspecified torment nameless visits upon him . . .

. . . and Olivia offers a wry and pithy (if arguable) take that only a woman could construct and exalt Galt as Man of Men (perhaps by extension, no man would have felt it necessary to exalt the young lover, merely to praise, mentor and enjoy).

Now you, Ross -- rarely in my ken one afraid of suggestive genderizationalized jokery -- you make an analogy roughly as titled above.

I infer, perhaps quite wrongly, that you think conjuring a Mr Rand (and then wondering if the Affair might have been as fraught) is as wildly improbable as Rand being Miss Karla Marx Jr.

I don't see this. It does not follow to this fledgling, not-yet-objective mind . . . without the big white fluffy beard, I see Karla as a plain, portly Gabor sister -- the plainest and thus most socialist.

Original image from cooperativeindividualism.org

I apologize if by the potent magic of my words I have brought a fit of snark upon you, Ross-man. We shall chat again one day and you shall again urge me to F*** Off -- just the way I like it (and hey, what's up with on-again off-again chatbox, dude?).

WSS

++ How come craven, hidden "Krishabooby" gets carded for anonymity, but craven, hidden "Capitalist" does not?

(I do support the effect: K-booby's involuntary mouth-zippering. The ersatz gawdboob was a true incarnation of Troll)

What if Ayn Rand had been a serial killer!?

--Brant

Chris Cathcart will appreciate this one. There is one particular much beloved HPO regular of very long standing (I believe since its inception which is now about 10 years) who, when he is not tormenting Chris, is driving me crazy. He openly admits that he gets great pleasure out of being a pain-in-the-ass.

Anyway, a propos of this scintillating conversation, one of his favorite expressions when confronted with similar hypotheticals is, "So? And if my grandmother had balls, she would have been my grandfather."

Wait! I've got a *great* idea! Let's speculate on how things would have transpired if Rand had been a *collectivist*.

Huh? C'mon, let's be having ya!

I don't understand Jason's post-diction. Although he claims that my post is 'nonsensical speculation,' he answers the question raised: "What if Ayn Rand had been a man?"

I appreciate that.

Jason speculates that Mr Rand's philosophy would have had minimal effect; the warrant for this assertion is that 'typical' opponents would have been able to bury Rand's work under a barrage of ideological objections. I don't believe this premise is sound.

Jason also speculates that if it were Mr rather than Miss Rand, erstwhile supporters would have lacked the testosterone to get behind the philosophy and promote it. This is a non sequitur, to my eyes.

Thanks for the note, Jason!

WSS

James Valliant disagrees that Objectivism would be the same philosophy had Rand been a male. I infer, perhaps incorrectly, that Valliant does then consider Objectivism to be bound up in Rand's gender -- his note could be seen as asserting that gender determines integrity, and that only women can be steadfast in defence of their highest values. I also find the assertion can be read to say that the bulk of Rand's thought and value was 'masculine.'

James, is there some other warrant for your assertion -- beyond your belief that a Mr Rand would have had smaller balls than a Miss?

WSS

If Rand had been a man her life would have been much easier. Her ideas would have been taken seriously by many more people for a start.

Had Rand been a man she would not have had to endure being lashed by the tongues of the self-righteous for the great sin of having an affair either. For many people the most important thing about her life seems to be who she slept with - this would never have been an issue to the extent it has been had she been male.

If Ayn Rand had been a man, I would have jumped her.

You mean, you would have jumped him.

If Ayn Rand had been a man, I would have jumped her.

Only a woman could be a true man-worshipper at the end of the day.

While the speculation above is nonsensical, I will add to James's point. While I don't doubt that a male Ayn Rand would have the courage to come out with this philosophy, the impact of it (unfortunately) would have been minimal. This is becuase far fewer readers of her work would have had the balls to openly acknowledge and promote Objectivism.  It would have been labeled as a "white eurocentrist masculinist" ideology.  The fact that Ayn Rand was a female leaves the typical intellectual/altrust/collectivist with very few such labels and thus they are forced to attack her based on her personal life or ignore altogether the fact that she has put most of them into the "intellecual wildlife preserve".

The white male stereotype would have been far more effective then the above tactics.

 - Jason

"None of her ideas and philosophy would be different, since her philosophy was not and is not gender-bound." I disagree. I doubt that a man in our altruist culture would ever have had the balls to defend masculine values like Ayn Rand.