RoR: Forum

All this is a bit encouraging but also disheartening--Gotthelf and many others from the original Rand circle tend to exclude innumerable other scholars, like Rasmussen, Mack, Den Uyl, Machan, Badhwar, Sciabarra, Miller, et al., as legitimate supporters of the scholarly, academic study of Ayn Rand's philosophy and legacy. This corrupted "individualism" they practice is difficult to explain--do they think no one else but they qualify as skilled interpreters and elaborators of Ayn Rand? Why not make a case for that view, then? Do they think they would lose their standing with Paikoff & Co. if they acknowledged the input of others? Why not be forthright about that, then? Are they plain ignorant?
       I am also a bit puzzled about this notion that all concepts ought to be as precise as those in mathematics. Was it not Aristotle who alerted us all that precision itself is contextual? Will "child," "adolescent," "adult" or "elderly" or even "human being" ever be precise in the way that, say, "square," "circle," or "triangle" is? As reality becomes more and more complicated, the precision of concepts will have to adjust. I am brought to task by animals "rights" and "liberation" advocates for not producing a definition of "human being" that is comparable to the definition of "two," given that "a being of volitional consciousness" does not fully account for people in a coma or infants or the like. If one demands comparable precision to mathematics or geometry, the idea that concepts (and their definitions) will be "precise" will be a mere Platonic (and thus destructive) ideal.
      I have authored quite a few books developing Rand's ideas and the likes of Gotthelf never ever acknowledge this work as making any kind of contribution. (The latest is Objectivity: Recovering Determinate Reality in Philosophy, Science, and Everyday Life [UK: Ashgate, 2004]. I have managed to make reference to and quoted Rand in mainstream philosophy journals--The Personalist, American Philosophical Quarterly, Theory and Decision, Inquiry, Journal of Value Inquiry, Philosophy of Science, you name it since 1969--and yet Gotthelf & Co., seem to believe that a course at Pitt is the only progress worthy of being mentioned. (I am also a bit disappointed by Ifran in his complicity in this ruse.)
      "Give me a break," as John Stossell would say!

Post 1

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 4:45pm

deleted
(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 2:42pm)

Post 2

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 5:28pm

The issue was recognizing other than Gotthelf and Co. as having contributed to Rand's presence in the academy. All that others stuff is irrelevant--being in the ARS and such. The ruse is to exclude everyone from having made Rand academically respectable, having introduced her into academic scholarly work. (Gotthelf was one of the three people who condemned me for publishing a piece in The Personalist, back in 1969, because the journal carried a piece by Branden. Maybe he hasn't forgiven me my big sin to this day.)

Tibor R. Machan

Post 3

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 6:20pm

deleted

(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 2:42pm)

Post 4

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 5:57pm

Prof. Machan,

From my discussions with ARI members, they take the position that it isn't inherently wrong to discuss non-ARI authors such as yourself, so long as the author isn't: (a) "immoral"; or (b) "unscholarly". Funny, most non-ARI people fall into that category. In fact, Gotthelf said in his book that there wasn't much of value in works published about Rand. (p. 27.)

I'm not sure why the Ayn Rand Society would have as members non-ARI scholars. That seems like the one exception to the rule.

As an aside, I've never quite understood why Objectivists consider Rand's theory of concepts so important. It strikes me as by far the weakest part of her philosophy. I've never seen any citation to the relevant literature that shows the mind forms concepts the way Rand said.

Post 5

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 6:21pm

I have authored quite a few books developing Rand's ideas and the likes of Gotthelf never ever acknowledge this work as making any kind of contribution. (The latest is Objectivity: Recovering Determinate Reality in Philosophy, Science, and Everyday Life [UK: Ashgate, 2004].

Is this the one where you tackle Kuhn's theory of ordinary and extraordinary science? You sent me a copy of two sample chapters, critiquing Kuhn's model of science, for comment back in November of 2002: is that where it ended up?

Post 6

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 7:57pm

My Objectivity (Ashgate, 2004) has a chapter on Kuhn but mainly on his epistemology and metaphysics.
Also, I was hasty in saying Irfan was complicit in a ruse. I think Irfan was bringing us some information that I found lacking and incomplete, but that's not Irfan's fault. I apologize.

Post 7

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 9:05pm

Yes.

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 9:19pm

When I read that interview from Pitt I went a bit ballistic, I am sorry. For more than thirty years I have diligently worked to show that Rand's contributions to philosophy are important, yet none of these folks like Goffhelf would give me the time of day. None. Then Gotthelf gets a gig at Pitt to talk about Rand to students and it's suddenly a big deal. As if others like me hadn't been doing this for ages. Give me a break. So, yes, I am a bit bitter, although I manage to get it out of my system the right sort of way (like this, for example). Some seem to think I am over the top with this, that I have nothing to beef about. OK, strictly speaking they are right--no one owes me recognition for my work, not in any morally binding sense, I suppose (although one could argue that scholarly ethics would implore one to acknowledge my contributions, something Gotthelf & Co. have never done). But then there is the fact that Gotthelf has never acknowledged Rand's influence on him in his books on Aristotle--he kept silent about it there, probably as a matter of prudence (in the bad sense of it, like being politic).
I am sorry I let loose in response to the posting from Irfan but I do not take back my view that Gotthelf & Co. are very selective about whom they credit with getting Rand's views into play in academe. This forum isn't a scholarly one, so a bit of passion may well be fitting here. Tell me if I am wrong.

(Edited by Machan on 8/29, 9:21pm)

Post 9

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 9:13pm

Thank you. I hope it's being read.

Post 10

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 9:04am

Tibor Machan wrote:

Gotthelf was one of the three people who condemned me for publishing a piece in The Personalist, back in 1969, because the journal carried a piece by Branden. Maybe he hasn't forgiven me my big sin to this day

Apparetnly, condemnation of those who publish in the same publication as Branden is no longer a sin, or else such condemnation is selective. For example, The Freeman issue of April 2001 carried an article by Andrew Bernstein, side by side with an article by Nathaniel Branden. Nobody said a word against Bernstein. Here is the table of content:

The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - April 2001
Vol. 51, No. 4

Table of Contents

Beware the Ides of April (Plus Two) by Ted Roberts

The Inventive Period by Andrew Bernstein

What Am I Missing? by Ralph Hood

Reflections on Self-Responsibility and Libertarianism by Nathaniel Branden

Regulation by Reputation on the Net: Business by Aaron Steelman

Dictatorship of Lawyers by James Bovard

Overreacting to Terrorism by James L. Payne

The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control by Miguel A. Faria, Jr.

The War on Drugs Opens a New Front by George C. Leef

The Perils of Positive Rights by Tibor R. Machan

Regulation by Reputation on the Net by Aaron Steelman

Post 11

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 3:23pm

Didn't even know--we are all there, by Jove! Well, who knows, it doesn't really matter that much. My beef is really just a minor one, in the big scheme of things: Gotthelf gets praise or at least a send up here at SOLO HQ.COM for doing a course on Rand at Pitt--he is bringing her to academe thereby--but others rarely get a mention by loyal Objectivists for the very similar things they have done for decades. Gotthelf himself could--probably should--have noted there are quite a few others who have done pretty hard work giving Rand some circulation in academe.
Oh, yes, on that invitation I got to do something for ARS, it was on how I teach Rand's egoism in my classes, a rather minimal acknowledgment of years of work on Rand's ideas. For all I know, they just need extra bodies at ARS. I have been around the block a bit and know when crumbs are thrown to someone and when others are treated in a VIP fashion for not straying too far from the clan's preferred orthodox terminology.
If someone is really interested in all this (which may well be getting tiresome here), wait until my memoir appears in November 2004, The Man Without a Hobby (Hamilton Books), which carries a fairly detailed account of these and related matters. It should be some fun reading, in any case.

(Edited by Machan on 8/30, 3:36pm)

Post 12

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 6:11pm

What I personally found most disturbing in this article was the statement:

Gotthelf acknowledges that he isn�t sure if Rand will ever be considered a major philosophical figure.

Gott im Himmel, isn�t that what we are agreed must happen, if the world is to have any hope? Is this philosophy stuff some sort of game?

Post 13

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 6:52pm

Michelle, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

Barbara

Post 14

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:51am

Michelle, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

I assume it's tongue-in-cheek. :)

Post 15

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:19am

deleted
(Edited by Irfan Khawaja on 10/19, 2:43pm)

Post 16

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:50am

Irfan, I was not posting against Gotthelf�I have no particular opinion at this point about him�just against that statement. Now think again about what I said.

Post 17

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:01am

Deleted. (An attempt to reason with Irfan which he no longer deserves.)

For the benefit of current readers: I pointed out that it was difficult for long-timers who were all too aware of past politics to drop the context and look at the article fresh-eyed as if they were the first-year Pitt students hearing about Rand for the same time. I also pointed out that I did not find the article remarkable because: 1. It indicated that "Rand starts from the same place as Aristotle" and "Rand�s thought is most akin to Aristotle�s" but not how she (supposedly) improved on Aristotle. What I did find remarkable was that Rand was referred to exclusively as an Aristotelian and not a Nietzschean. 2. The article did not mention Gotthelf's book "On Ayn Rand" or the Ayn Rand Society, of which he is the chairman.

(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 9/01, 10:27am)

(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 9/02, 10:36am)

(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 9/09, 7:13am)

Post 18

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 11:12am

That's just right. Nor is anyone, for crying out loud, proposing to "forbid" mentioning Gotthelf here or anywhere else, only suggesting--maybe imploring some folks--that when his advancing Rand in academe is singled out as "remarkable," that be qualified with noting that there are many others--John Hospers, John O. Nelson, Douglas B. Rasmussen, Douglas J. Den Uyl, Eric Mack, Rod Long, Neera Badhwar, Chris Sciabarra, myself, and more--who have done as much if not a whole lot more to advance Rand in academe. No, this is no colossal problem, but this is a friendly forum among philosophical cohorts who feel comfortable--at least I do--to vent a bit when this seems appropriate, even about small matters. Getting a bit miffed is, indeed, part of the sense of life of decent Objectivists--one need but recall Ayn Rand herself and how she used to go into minor orbit on TV and elsewhere whenever someone misspoke (recall the moment on Phil Danahue when she came down like a ten ton truck on a young woman for saying that she used to belive as Rand did but doesn't any longer or something).

Post 19

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:47pm