RoR: Forum

Alec,

I agree with most of what you say in your post. Just a small point. You write

"鼦 "review of a review"??!! Of a freakin' 200 page book??!!!!???!!"

My edition of Rawls' A THEORY OF JUSTICE comes in at 607 pages.

Fred

Post 41

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:54am

Rand spoke her mind when she thought she had enough to go on. That'll do me. I couldn't care less if it doesn't satisfy a bunch of pomo wankers in academia. I can think of no greater torture to impose on any less deserving person than to insist she read the whole kit & caboodle. She had way better things to do, & it's simply vicious to fault her for not burying her head in crap. She did not pretend to be a scholar who waded through everything & addended copious footnotes, references, cross-references & all the rest. She was a polemicist who, once she had grasped the essence of something vile, sallied forth mightily against it.

Well said. One does not have to have evidence to state that they think something is BS. I haven't read the complete bible, yet I feel informed enough to call it crap without having footnotes or a committee of experts to back my opinion. BTW whats a pomo wanker?

Post 42

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 12:10pm

BTW whats a pomo wanker?

ROFL

Hah! You're going to have to explain that Linz :)

Post 43

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:06am

Daniel Barnes wrote

>>The one thing we can be certain of is that - with very rare exceptions - she does not *quote* him. So we have to ask: why not? Why is everything in paraphrase, and nothing verbatim?

The why not may be that to quote Kant you would have to do so in German. To quote him in English would depend upon the translation you were using. Any English quotes would be paraphases.

Post 44

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:12am

Michael,

I still believe you are making more of this than it merits. Having been the editor of a small rag myself, I can understand the kind of pressure Rand was under to write articles, read, do reasearch, and write books all at the same time. I can not fault her for finding a shortcut here and there. That she was careful enough not to get it wrong, satisfies me.

Post 45

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 2:01pm

Besides, Kant did not write clearly, so paraphrasing would be an excellent way to garner the essence such that others would grasp what he said...

Post 46

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 3:03pm

Robert & Robert - The point of all this is not Rand's effectiveness as a reporter - it is her conduct as a philosopher.

Youst to waz, I was a bit of a Randroid myself (albeit in the "Silent Contingency") and took it as a given that anything out of the mind of my Earthly Goddess was Holy Scripture not to be questioned, only to be understood. If I didn't understand it, the problem was with me and I just had to try harder until I did.

Didn't work. Got hurt. Woke up.

She ain't no goddess. Just a magnificent human being with quirks. Typical genius.

I guess it all boils down to the statement, "satisfies me." Well, second-hand info doesn't satisfy me for fundamentals any longer - not even from the pen of a giant like Ayn Rand. That's why I essentially agree with Fred's posture on her scholarship, despite not sharing his taste in pastime. (You think he does Kant for fun?)

(sigh)

I suppose that means that I will have to read a little Kant myself (or God forbid, Rawls) if I ever want to discuss him intelligently, but I don't see wanting to do anything like that in the near future. (Actually I did read parts of Kant's works years ago. I wasn't able to make any sense out of it back then.)

Michael

Post 47

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:35pm

Michael,

You've found me out. I actually enjoy reading Kant and do so for pleasure (don't tell Linz). [Plus I teach him 2 or 3 times a year] I don't think Kant should be read by everyone. Take Rearden. He just has to much to do and has Dagny, so he doesn't need Kant. Ragnar on the other hand is a different matter. He must read Kant--if he plans to do any serious work in Kant's philosophy, or even if he plans to be a serious professional. Now one can specialize in, say, ancient philosophy and then one has little to do with Kant--you're spending all your time with Plato, Aristotle and the other ancients. [ Peikoff made a similar point on one of his tapes, although the topic was the "proofs" for the existence of God.] There simply are different requirements for the (1) teacher, (2) the scholar, (3) the serious intellectual, or (4)those simply not interested in any other philosopher except Rand.

Fred

Post 48

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:39pm

"Edited to correct spelling of Prof. Seddon's name, with apologies."

Jeff, Love means never having to say your sorry.

Fred

Post 49

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:06pm

Lance,

NIce to hear from you.

Fred, do you honestly believe that Rand didn't read Kant?

She had to read a least some Kant , but Branden was reporting on his 18 years with her and to his knowledge she never read much of Hume or Kant. But my problem is the following. How could anyone state that there are no definitions in Kant. There all over the place. How can one explain such a silly mistake?

" I'm of the opinion that蟵t the very least Rand read猬nough to identify Kant's epistemological theory and his duty-based ethics."

Let me address the "epistemology." If she read enough Kant to understand his epistemology, which I suppose would require her to read x number of pages, she would have come across lots of his definitions. If she missed the definitions, which are everywhere in the Critique, then maybe she also missed the epistemology, which is a damn sight harder to get right than simply noticing when a writer is defining his terms!!

Fred

Post 50

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:11pm

Michael wrote:

>>Youst to waz, I was a bit of a Randroid myself (albeit in the "Silent Contingency") and took it as a given that anything out of the mind of my Earthly Goddess was Holy Scripture not to be questioned, only to be understood.

You are assuming we share this in common. Saying what you have said here got me silenced at Objectivism online.com. Rand as Goddess is not my problem.

>>The point of all this is not Rand's effectiveness as a reporter - it is her conduct as a philosopher.

You'll have to show me where your expectation of her is encoded in the philosopher's handbook. ;-)

I mean you no ill-will. I just think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I do not accept the notion that how one approaches a project is more important than the correct answer, i.e. that form is more important than content or style more important than substance.

Post 51

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:22pm

Kevin,

I thought I made this clear. By intellectual standards, I hardly mean footnotes and quotations. Those are necessary when appropriate, in certain contexts, to back up your attributions. What I meant by intellectual standards was: healthy reasoning, persuasiveness, thoroughness, honesty, fairness. That means reading a book you wish to review and presenting its ideas fairly--not just predicting them based on what you perceive to be the premise. Rand's other works excelled by most intellectual standards because she dealt with ideas through and through -- in a clear and concise way, what's more.

You don't have to read Mein Kempf to see that its ideas are crap. But, if you wanted to understand why the content in that book was so persuasive to so many millions, and how Hitler reached his conclusions from his premises (a false premise can go a million different ways) in such a way that struck a sympathetic chord with people -- if you wanted to truly understand and analyze it, then yes, you would have to read it.

Fred,

You surely have one of the significantly revised editions. I've been told that the original edition was around 200 pages. But I could be wrong.

Alec

Post 52

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:37pm

Michael wrote:

>>Youst to waz, I was a bit of a Randroid myself (albeit in the "Silent Contingency") and took it as a given that anything out of the mind of my Earthly Goddess was Holy Scripture not to be questioned, only to be understood. If I didn't understand it, the problem was with me and I just had to try harder until I did.

I do not share this with you. I was never what you call a "Randoid".

>>The point of all this is not Rand's effectiveness as a reporter - it is her conduct as a philosopher.

You'll have to show where your expectation of Rand's performance is encoded in the Philosopher's Handbook. ;-)

I wish you no ill-will. I do not believe in exalting the process over the correct answer, i.e. that form is more important than content or style more important than substance.

Post 53

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:41pm

Robert,

"Tell me, how many scholars read Aristotle or Plato in the original Greek? Are their arguments and observations any less relevant because they rely on commentaries and translations, which may or may not be faithful transcriptions? Would you fault these scholars as well?"

Yes I would. When I attend conferences on Plato or Aristotle, most of the scholars will have a Greek text with him, or if not, often times the speaker will provide the Greek text he is commenting on. Not only that, all of the commentators I read sprinkle lots of Greek words throughout their works. Let's take as examples, two Objectivists that happen to be scholars of Aristotle, James Lennox and Allan Gotthelf. In all of the works that they have published their knowledge of Greek is obvious. Lennox has translated Aristotle's ON THE PARTS OF ANIMALS I -IV, and Gotthelf has updated the Balme translation of DE PARTIBUS ANIMALIUM. I myself have provided my own translations (in German and Greek) of small passages in my book AYN RAND, OBJECTIVISTS AND THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. I really don't know how one could get by without at least some small knowledge of the language of the thinker you're working on.

Fred

Post 54

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:43pm

Michael,

Sorry about the redundency. The computer froze the first time and I had to reboot, so I thought it had not been sent.

Post 55

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:47pm

Fred,

You're a better man than I am, but I won't feel guilt or refrain from commenting on the Greeks when I need to, based on English translations.

b

Post 56

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:13pm

Robert D - What are you smoking?

We disagree. That's all. I post my own thoughts and experiences and people can make of them what they will. But I have never assumed that you are sharing anything at all with me until you just mentioned it. I still don't, except maybe this string. Hell, I don't even know you. You also put words into my mouth about exalting form over content. You're wrong. I don't.

Fred, my man. You sound like a very interesting dude. You actually own up to doing all that boring Kant for your jollies and even turn it into "Freddie the Kantinator." You got my respect.

Michael

Post 57

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 3:18am

Just so we're clear鎸'd like to know from the Groupies of Academe here:

Precisely how was Rand's critique of Rawls & Kant rendered less potent or accurate because she didn't read every word they wrote? Understand, I'm asking this question, like Robert above, re the content of her critique, not the methodology (not reading every word written by purveyors of vileness before pronouncing judgement based on a grasp of their essence) since we've all agreed that her methodology does not/would not satisfy the demands of pomo wankers.

Understand too, that I ask this as one who has disputed her generalisation re Kant�"the most evil man in history"�& written quite recently that if such an Oscar is to be dispensed on the basis of one's ideas, then Rousseau deserves to be mentioned alongside Kant. (Interestingly, none of the Groupies had a thing to say about that. Do they only come out to play when someone is called for breaching the hallowed rules of Vile Academe?!)

Linz

Post 58

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 7:02am

Alec,

I pretty much agree with what you're saying there. The only thing I really don't agree with is that all of those things you say are appropriate if you are trying to thoroughly analyze a thinker and find out their motives, the reasons for their influence, etc. But, in this case, I don't think that Rand was trying to do that. Like I mentioned in my last post, the article on Rawls has the feeling of a gut-reaction piece, not a serious scholarly analysis. Now if her gut-reaction precluded her from actually reading the book and investigating further, then we can talk about the perils of letting visceral emotion get in the way of scholarship. Otherwise, this article is what it is, and the people who should be questioned are the ones who made a mountain out of a molehill by taking it as a serious academic piece to begin with.

Kevin

Post 59

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 7:32am