John: I fully and without reserve, endorse the view that with respect to Objectivism they have been a sidenote, which is generous of me, because what I mean is they are really irrelevant.
Interesting observation, John, but be careful how you fling around the term: irrelevant.
Because if this is in fact the case, then what is the degree of “irrelevancy” that you would assign: Andrew Bernstein, Leonard Peikoff, David Kelley, Tara Smith, Peter Schwartz, Robert Bidinotto, Ed Hudgins, Tibor Machan, Chris Sciabarra, Roger Donway, the thousands of students that attended NBI, the hundreds that have attended ARI and TOC seminars, the people that donate money and/or time to TOC/ARI, or the silent majority of casual fans and students of her philosophy?
Of course, I suppose that there are 'degrees' of irrelevancy, and that you would categorize these people in proportion to their degree of irrelevancy, is that your claim? Also, if this is your claim, who gets to draw up the irrelevancy graph?
Oddly enough, there isn’t a person on that list I just gave you, including many fellow-travelers, non-scholars and non-activists, who have not been “relevant” to my own intellectual development – whether directly or indirectly. True, some more than others, and some to varying degrees of positive and negative influences; but totally irrelevant - none of them have been. And as far as I am concerned, you can add to that list, under the heading, - 'more relevant than most', the names: Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden.
But then you might say, “Okay maybe they all are relevant to some degree or another, but some only in the negative, IE, in the harm they have done Objectivism.” You might say that, but then if you did, I would have to ask, what would classify any of these people as having been more harmful than beneficial to Objectivism, and what standard should we use to make this claim? By this you would have to mean that more people have been “turned off” to Objectivism, than “turned on” by what the Branden’s have accomplished in their lives. If that is the nature of your claim, all I can say is: prove it. But let me warn you, it’s going to be quite a task on your part, because the evidence to the contrary is rather extensive, reaches across decades, and hundreds of people that may argue otherwise.
But then perhaps what you mean is, that the brand of Objectivism they have taught or endorsed has had a net negative effect; is that your claim? Brother, if that’s what your saying, then according to some, more than half the people on my above list are worse than just irrelevant, instead they would have to be included, along with the Brandens, as destructive to Objectivism.
However, in fairness to you, I think you did give me a clue as to the standard that you are applying, when you said, “They benefited more from their association with Ayn Rand than she did from them.” That’s irrefutably true, John; no reasonable person can argue that point. In fact, I bet that few people have been of greater benefit to Ayn Rand, - than she was to them. Perhaps her mother was, what do you think?
But then you said, “In the end, her net benefit was nil.” Nil, John, as in, she benefited nothing at all from them? - Nothing?! Wow John, I must say, you’re a tough man to please. Hell man, I’ll bet Ayn Rand even benefited from the bag boy at a Super Market, much less from her two closest associates that headed up the early expansion of the Objectivist movement.
Let me tell you what’s irrelevant, John: the time, effort and passion expended on this worn, old, divisive, subjectively interpreted - horseshit of a topic. Now that’s irrelevant.
George
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/27, 12:22pm)
|
